Bright or Not Bright

[Viti]

In a thread in The Lounge someone said "most people here dislike the term Bright" and someone else said "Have we taken a vote or something" (exact wording optional, you get the gist)

Anyway, that made me think. Perhaps the anti-Brights are simply more vocal so appear to be the majority when, in fact, most people are in favor of the idea?

You may wish to read the various discussions here in this forum, there is a link in The Lounge thread to an essay, or go straight to the source in order to form your opinion, The Brights (http://www.the-brights.net/)

I thought a poll would allow people to vote honestly and anonymously if they wish.

[Viti]

Well maybe someone can comment to keep it from going off the page ;)

[nerv111]

I voted no. Aside from thinking that the term 'brights' is stupid, when was it decided that we need an umbrella term?

[azazel]

First off, 'Bright' makes us sound like wussy hippies.

Second, an umbrella term is a betrayal of our principles. Do we want to be simply generalized as one group? We're not united. We're different. The theists for one, don't like being called theists. I think they feel insulted (even subconsciously), for their 'one true faith' to be put alongside the 'misled'. I mean, nihilists, agnostics, and militant atheists are three different kinds of people. Nihilists, especially would not want to be called 'Bright'. Also, once were consolidated under an umbrella term. The media can work its magic and vilify the 'Brighties' in the public eye. As if discrimination isn't bad enoguh...

Third, it makes us infidels and our ilk sound like some sort of cult from Iowa.

In conclusion, I'm opinionated (don't take me seriously on some points). "I believe that you are a moron, regardless of race, creed, or religion and that I will kill you", pretty much sums up my prejudices. For example, my hatred of rappers is not racism. I just don't like morons.

[john fraz]

I'm glad to see people here soundlly rejecting the term.
Too sappy, too euphemistic, too willing to be conciliatory to those who say we're "angry at god", or scared in life since we know god is going to judge us later.
We know we're not lost, brooding in desparing desolation since we don't have the lord's light in our lives (as the saying goes), we know we're sometimes maybe a little too self assured and smug at not being another superstitious sheep -what else can you call yourself if you're part of a "flock"? Oh, right. "Saved".:rolleyes:

We don't need to adopt a sappy showy term for ourselves to try to prove anything to them.

:p to all those concerns
So Giordano Bruno was somewhat nutz. In the spirit of resisting what you know is wrong and idiotic, and going along with Galileo (even though he caved in and kept it to himself, as Bruno didn't even as they lit the fires), I'm proud to be called heretic, and to identify myself as an a-theist (even though that term covers a lot of ground).
:D I had to laugh at the idea of a nihilistic existentialist being called a "bright"!

I never understood why some Wiccan people called themselves "Pagan", since that's a religious term for another word for firewood. Since I openly identified myself as a-theist (thanks to the Boulder Atheists being at public festivals, putting the good word out), I understand.
We're all heretic firewood to them, and they'll never change. We either have to band together, being proud of our resistance, shoot back, or ignore them.

[Blake]

Well, the unscientific poll is pretty clear so far. 3 yes, 33 no, 3 undecided, 5 don't care. I'm one of the "no's." I don't understand why people I otherwise know to be intelligent are devoting themselves to this--don't they see how crappy their arguments are? What the hell is wrong with "atheist," "heathen" or "infidel," anyway? Why go for the perpetually implied insult of "Bright," which inherently puts down anyone who isn't identified with nontheism?

Ah well, enough. All this has been said better elsewhere already.

[Rochs]

After reading a thread on 'Brights' here, and perusing the website posted by LadyShea, I would, at the very least, weakly protest having the term affixed to myself. A well intentioned label perhaps, but another label I don't particularly desire.

[excreationist]

(I voted no)
"Bright" is a bit like "Christian".... it begins with a capital letter... but it is quite a bit less flexible... it can't be used as an adjective like many group names can:

e.g.
I'm Christian - I'm Bright :(
I'm a Christian - I'm a Bright :)
My friends are Christian - My friends are Bright :(
My friends are Christians - My friends are Brights :)
This is a group of Christian women - This is a group of Bright women :(
This is a group of female Christians - This is a group of female Brights :)

[frostymama]

I don't really like it because I think it would automatically put theists on the defensive. What are the opposite of "Brights"? "Dims"? "Dulls"?

I think if we feel the need to have an umbrella term for ourselves.. can't we pick something that doesn't give them another reason to scream that we hate them or think they are stupid?

[reprise]

People make all kinds of wrong assumptions about the beliefs of those who come under the umbrella term "atheist" - imagine how much more confusion will be result from the widespread use of an umbrella term such as "bright".

[Bloop]

I think of people in white robes peddling Energy Chrystals and a trip to the Above and Beyond when I hear the term Bright. When they log on to Internet message boards they typically produce stuff like this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48521)

Not to mention the swollen-head factor of calling yourself a Bright. This name is like a soccer penalty shot without a goalie for all the Limbaughs out there. Couldn't the inventors find anything that would play more into the stereotype of atheists as being smug know-it-alls than this?

I propose KittenandBabySlasherEater

Bloop

[dangin]

Bright doesn't bother me, I actually like the connotation against the nonbrights. But I'd rather just be an atheist.

[MzNeko]

I like the terms "Infidel", "heathen", "heretic", "non-believer", "vile godless scum", etc....

...of course I'm the sort of person that enjoys the knowledge that someone, somewhere is pissed off by the simple fact of my existence... and there's nothing they can (legally) do about it, neener, neener, neener! :D

But I'm just a brat at heart. ;)

[scigirl]

My problem with the term (well one of them) - is that being an atheist does not automatically make you "bright."

I feel that I am a bright person, and I also identify myself as an atheist. However, I am a bright person because I had a good upbringing, I study hard, I've had great education opportunities. The atheism had nothing to do with it. Of course, I think the atheism helps keep me bright. . .

scigirl

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

To those who voted "yes," you have the opportunity to defend your stance in a formal debate from a challenge (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59204) declared in FD(CS).

Jason

[PopeInTheWoods]

I like it, even though it's not as good as "infidel".

[theyeti]

The term, "bright", is much too Orwellian. It's also arrogant and self-congratulatory. It invites (well deserved, in my opinon) ridicule, and thus has the opposite of the intended effect. Of course this has all been said already a thousand times over. Can we please drop this garbage before it does lasting harm?

If we must come up with some sort of a "non-clinical" monker, let's stick with infidel or heathen.

theyeti

[Oresta]

I voted no.
I said before, in the initial discussion thread, and I say it again: "Bright" is a not only a silly term, it smells suspiciously of the closet. On the other hand, "Atheist" describes exactly what I don't believe or ascribe to.
If one does not believe in any god or gods, why would want to assume a label that doesn't declare that? Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodsists, Baptists, etc. have taken names which describe, in some sense, what belief system they embrace. Like all those sects and sub-sects and sub-sects of Christianity, we folks have perfectly succinct and economical terms to describe all the gradations of where we are in the spectrum of free thought, ranging from the "hard atheist" to "agnostic" to beyond. If we already have adequate language to say - and be understood - where we stand, and have the Constitutional guarantee to the right to live by that stand, why not articulate it honestly?
I can't imagine why anyone, theist or otherwise, would want to be called a "Bright" unless he/she had collected more acorns than any other Brownie on a field trip, and got some stupid ribbon along with the deal.

[One for Sorrow]

I agree with most of the posters here.

If theists had decided to use the word "Bright" as their umbrella term, then we'd all be laughing our asses off or shaking our heads at how arrogant they are.

The term "Bright" won't remove the stigma that comes with being an atheist, agnostic, ect. It will just give them one more reason to hate us.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by scigirl
My problem with the term (well one of them) - is that being an atheist does not automatically make you "bright."

I feel that I am a bright person, and I also identify myself as an atheist. However, I am a bright person because I had a good upbringing, I study hard, I've had great education opportunities. The atheism had nothing to do with it. Of course, I think the atheism helps keep me bright. . .

scigirl
I'm not sure what form of "bright" you're talking about... it seems that you were only talking about your intelligence... if you are saying that you're a Bright then you should say "I feel that I am a Bright". The Brights' Network (http://www.the-brights.net/being_a_bright.htm#Language%20Lesson) site talks about how to use the term.

[viscousmemories]

I voted no. I've explained why in detail here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722), and in various other places. If the community of non-religious needs a facelift at all, and if it can be shown that a new word to describe us might provide that improved appearance, I would recommend fervent promotion of the more apt "naturalist".

The only argument I've heard that suggests Bright is a better alternative than naturalist is that Bright is monosyllabic and cheery. I have come to accept the fact that when I'm trying to describe my rather complex worldview to people, I may be forced to use words that are difficult for most people to pronounce, much less understand. Such is life. As for naturalist not being cheery enough... well, blow me.

vm

[excreationist]

copernicus:
From here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59204):
For the record, excreationist, I don't care whether my usage breaks the rules posted on the Bright site. If you want to know why, then ask me on the thread that Nightshade posted a link to.
By saying "on the Bright site" you are breaking the rules again... so why don't you care? I thought you endorsed the movement.... why are you going against the movement's site? I thought the movement was supposed to be quite unified. I thought that was the whole point of it - they have people registering, etc.

[Shake]

As the one who first broke the Brights story here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722), I was initially excited about it. I hadn't given it a lot of thought though, and was quickly enlightened by many II users about why it's not a good idea, as well as many personal objections. After much careful consideration, I've withdrawn my support of the new term, and will continue to refer to myself as either an infidel or an atheist.

Given the reactions here, I don't think it'll really ever get going in quite the way its creators would liked to have seen. Although, I think their hearts are in the right place. The 'a'-word does have quite a negative connotation to it (perhaps fading a bit with the fall of communism), and I feel we need to remove the negativity if we are going to want any respect from theists.

No new names/labels, just new ideas!

[Magic Primate]

I suggested elsewhere that Dawkin's proposal to use the term 'Bright' showed that his understanding of meme propagation was purely theoretical. In short, it sucks - for reasons already well covered here.

I tend to call myself an atheist or a non-theist. 'Non-theist' perhaps avoids some of the confusion that people have about 'atheist'.

[Tigermilk]

Sounds too much like characters you'd find in a Buck Rogers episode. Not for me, thanks.

Unless I get Wilma Deering and someone turns Twikki off.

[Buffman]

Labels are instantly divisive...and seldom inclusive. I hate labels. However, in order to save a great deal of band width, I elected to call myself a Non-Supernaturalist. NS...which can carry a more direct though somewhat less erudite characterization. :D

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Magic Primate
I suggested elsewhere that Dawkin's proposal to use the term 'Bright' showed that his understanding of meme propagation was purely theoretical. In short, it sucks - for reasons already well covered here.....
BTW, it was one of the Brights' site's creators (http://www.the-brights.net/faqs.htm#Who%20runs%20site) that coined the term.
Also, Dawkins (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) and Dennett (http://www.the-brights.net/dennett_nyt.htm) go against the official site and always use the term in lower-case.
In the Guardian article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html), Dawkins even uses the lowercase "bright" in this confusing way:
....Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.

[openeyes]

I'm in the minority obviously who thinks the term "Bright" can have its usefulness.

I became a "card-carrying" Bright (I had signed up on the website awhile back) this past weekend when I got a card for my wallet at an atheist conference from one of the founders of the term. So if I'm in an accident or something they won't have to call a priest or whatever.

Any more ways that we can get across that there are people without supernaturalistic views living and contributing in good ol' America is good in my book. If some people want to do that by calling themselves a Bright, fine with me.

[Toto]

Michael Shermer's E-Skeptic newsletter:

E-SKEPTIC FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine ( www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com ). Permission to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net
------------------------
BRIGHT FEEDBACK

When I posted my brief commentary on the new meme "Brights" to represent atheists, nontheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, infidels, heretics, skeptics, free thinkers, humanists and secular humanists, etc., I had not intended to solicit feedback from e-Skeptic readers; nevertheless, feedback I received! In droves. I have not done a formal count, but I estimate roughly 50 people wrote me. Two were positive about the word "Bright," the rest were unequivocally negative, and all for the same reason (as stated in one letter reproduced below). I had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback from various sources, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements are best driven not by committee and excessive discussion (free thinkers, humanists, skeptics, et al. have been talking about the labeling problem for decades) but by simply moving forward with an idea to see if it sticks. In general I dislike labels altogether, but our language and culture depends on them to an extent that I can't see a way around it.

Our world view is naturalism. Thus, I like the word "naturalist," but I fear that this conjures up the image of someone like Alfred Russel Wallace traipsing around the rain forest with a butterfly net. Our magazine is simply called "Skeptic," and so I also like the label "skeptics," but this is also frought with pejorative connotations, the most common synonym being "cynic." Since no one has come up with a better name than "brights" I figured we might as well go for it and see what happens. Maybe the meme name will catch on in the lexicon, or maybe it will simply fall into disuse. We'll see.

In the mean time, if any of you would like to suggest some alternatives I would be happy to collect them all and print them in another e-Skeptic. Just e-mail me at skepticmag@aol.com

===end quote ===

{Shermer reproduced a letter that was posted to the-Brights website, so I won't copy it here.}

So they threw the spaghetti against the wall to see if it would stick. . .

[Shake]

Originally posted by Toto
So they threw the spaghetti against the wall to see if it would stick. . . That seems like a fair analysis. It seems they need to take notes from how businesses are run. Sort of like doing some market research.

[never been there]

I voted no. I just can't quite stomach it. It's also useful to have a range of responses, from "not very religious" up to "militant atheist" depending on to whom one is talking.

How about "a herd of cats"? Less arrogant than "Bright" and just about as accurate a description of non-theists.

[ScumDog]

Most objections can be pointed toward the homosexual usage of the word 'gay'. Are all homosexuals happy? No. But they still use the word for happy. Is a homosexual necessarily happy? No. Is a heterosexual unhappy, because they're not gay? No.

[SiliconWolf]

I guess I can't see what we are trying to accomplish by making up a new label. We saw right through "Intelligent Design" so why wouldn't theists do the same with "The Brights"? Sure, it might throw people off for a little while, but do we really want to play that game?

Besides, it just doesn't have a good sound to it.

[ScumDog]

I'd agree, and it might even worsen the situation it is trying to amend. In all good intentions, it probably wouldn't attain its goal.

[Toto]

Arrgghhh - I'm listening to an NPR commentary by Stephen Waldman (sp?) cofounder and editor of beliefnet.com. He started out saying how could these so-called intelligent people pick such a public relations disaster of a name, one that tells other people that they are dummies? :banghead:

Then he went on to list statistics of people with graduate degrees who believe in non-rational things. How could this be, he said? Perhaps they have seen evidence which convinced them, and their graduate degrees and critical thinking skills that they must surely have learned show that this evidence must be respected.

:banghead:

[TheGreatInfidel]

Well, doesn't atheism refer to 1) the absence of theism, and 2) the outright denial of god? I mean, in either case the person is non-theistic. So why another word?

Even if it turns out that the majority want to use "bright", who says we as individuals have to accept this term? I like the term atheist, and that's what Ill go with. Once I didn't but I finally acquired the balls to admit that that is what I am. I stopped hiding behind terms like agnostic and Fideist.

Stop being pussies! Buck up!

[TheGreatInfidel]

Originally posted by Toto
Michael Shermer's E-Skeptic newsletter:

Our world view is naturalism. Thus, I like the word "naturalist," but I fear that this conjures up the image of someone like Alfred Russel Wallace traipsing around the rain forest with a butterfly net. Our magazine is simply called "Skeptic," and so I also like the label "skeptics," but this is also frought with pejorative connotations, the most common synonym being "cynic." Since no one has come up with a better name than "brights" I figured we might as well go for it and see what happens. Maybe the meme name will catch on in the lexicon, or maybe it will simply fall into disuse. We'll see.


See what I mean? It's all fear! Fear of the connotations. Again, buck up! Stop being pussies!

I propose a new phrase, "Bright is for pussies" What do you guys think? Comments?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by TheGreatInfidel
Well, doesn't atheism refer to 1) the absence of theism, and 2) the outright denial of god? I mean, in either case the person is non-theistic. So why another word?
Bright is a replacement for the word "naturalist". A naturalist is a bit different to an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods, but can believe in things that naturalists can't - like ghosts, demon possession, the afterlife, astrology, etc.

...See what I mean? It's all fear! Fear of the connotations...
Yeah... saying you're a naturalist might make people think you like to catch butterflies in a net... you'd be a laughing stock! :eek: (just kidding - it's not that bad)

[TheGreatInfidel]

THanks, for your reply excreationist. I see your point concerning the implications of atheism vs. naturalism. I think it's alot better to keep a word like naturalist and deal with the silly connotations, than to concoct a new one; who knows what kind of connotations it will acquire.

By the way, it never occured to me that "naturalist" might have the connotation of liking to catch butterflies. But is that why we must concoct a new word? Geez! Give me a break! :rolleyes:

[Buffman]

Why not simply be a Modern (American) Rationalist?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Buffman
Why not simply be a Modern (American) Rationalist?
That implies that others, such as Christians, are irrational (similar to "Bright" implying others are dim)... and it has too many syllables.

[Buffman]

That implies that others, such as Christians, are irrational

Well?

http://www.infidels.org/org/ar/

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/

See why I hate labels and why I decided to call myself a "Non-Supernaturalist(NS)?" (No Shit):D

[Buffman]

excreationist

Your comment, and all these others, seem overly concerned with what others may think...especially a certain group of terrified Christians. That radical group of religionists do not appear to be very concerned about demonizing anyone who calls them self an atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethinker/liberal/left wing/ Democrat/metaphysical naturalist/intellectual/etc. So why worry about whether they will be upset/offended because someone elects to call themselves a rationalist? The louder they complain, the more they expose their irrationality.

Personally I don't see those religionists who actually practice what their dogma preaches suddenly joining forces with the radicals because they think that they are being viewed as "irrational." If the radical group is offended because they wish to play some sort of verbal transposition game, I'm all for it. I will be more than happy to demand that they provide definitions of rational and irrational...especially in relation to faith belief claims in the supernatural. And that's what this is really all about. Who gets to hold on to the power over the masses by rational or irrational leadership. I choose rational.

I have grown very weary of always being on the defensive about the use of the scientifically critical reasoning process....where the most accurate verifiable evidence is used to help successfully resolve the increasing list of human created problems on this little grain of sand in a huge universe. There is no doubt in my mind that a faith belief in the supernatural is irrational. That does not mean that the person who accepts supernatural faith beliefs is irrational about anything else...and I wager that most aren't.

I guess I'm just looking for a method of going on offense rather than always being on defense. Very few conflicts have ever been won by being only on the defense. Rationality must not always be on defense because it fears upsetting the irrational.

(Obviously it's time for me to go to bed. Cheers.)

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Buffman
....Your comment, and all these others, seem overly concerned with what others may think...
Ok... besides being long, "rationalist" has many different meanings. At least for "naturalist" there were only two meanings.
In philosophy, theists like Decartes are said to be rationalists. (or "continental rationalists")
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Rationalism&redirect=no
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=rationalism

Rationalism seems to be basically about using reason to work things out for yourself... people like Chris Langan (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61067) would probably claim that they used that method. He came up with CTMU which claims that God exists. If rationalism presupposes that the supernatural does not exist, then that is a kind of dogma. But I thought rationalism is against dogma. Naturalism on the other hand doesn't claim to be free from dogma... and it is specific about what beliefs it involves - unlike your definition of rationalism - which doesn't even appear on those online encyclopedias I linked to. You said people could call themselves "Modern (American) Rationalists". That is a bit of a mouthful - compared to "Bright" (or naturalist). Is the "American" bit necessary or not? I mean could people be confused with something else if you didn't include "American"? If "American" is necessary, what if you are talking about Australians? Maybe you'd say "Australian Modern American Rationalist". So I think "naturalist" is better. And not just because it avoids rational/irrational and bright/dim problems.

...So why worry about whether they will be upset/offended because someone elects to call themselves a rationalist?
Call yourself a rationalist then.

For the rest of your post I'd probably make bad counter-arguments - so I'll stop here.

[openeyes]

I heard the Waldman essay on NPR yesterday concerning "The Brights" also.

I think at least it is a step up in that he was discussing atheism/agnosticism for some other reason than how we were contributing to the downfall of society.

I thought he was on the defensive and his arguments that many educated people are still believers and therefore you could find yourself with supernatural beliefs in a reasoned way didn't sound too strong to me (but of course I'm a little biased).

If people want to think the opposite of "Bright" is "Dim", that's one way to look at it. I look at the opposite as "Unenlightened" when it comes to the way in which the world really works. For some reason, in some people's brains, the "switch" to non-supernaturalism is never thrown.

[intjudo]

The way to achieve a successful group action is to, well, act as a group, and these 'bright' folks haven't bothered to do so much as get a basis consesus. I doubt they did so much as a thorough marketing analysis, focus group study or stink test. Coming up with an hypothesis and assuming it's correct without testing it isn't rational at all.

Well, so far here's how things are progressing, with the term 'bright' getting its first taste of national exposure:

"Are atheists and agnostics smarter than everyone else? A group of them have managed to assert that idea and disprove it in one swift marketing gambit. Not sure what the image buffers were aiming for, but the name 'the brights' succinctly conveys the sense that this group thinks it's more intelligent than everyone else. The rest of us would be the 'dims', I suppose."

<snip>

"Let's put aside the questionable intelligence of trying to improve your image by choosing a title that makes everybody hate you."

Pretty much 100% in step with what opponents of the term 'bright' predicted.

...this from Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of belief.net. You can listen to the audio stream at http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown...prgDate=current

He then goes on to quote stats that indicate a majority (in the range of 50 - 75%) of post-graduates in America have "non-rational" beliefs, and that's because they've found "proof" and "evidence" for them in their own personal experiences. He concludes "They certainly cannot argue that religion is just for dumb people."

For anyone who didn't know, the least likely way to make the world a better place for yourself is to go around pissing people off...the same ones you're trying to convince should be getting along better with you.

Not to mention insisting on something that is clearly divisive to the group of people that you have a common ground with.

--intjudo (Agnostic.)

[Coragyps]

I'm far too dim to call myself a "bright." It sounds like an organization to compete with Brownie Scouts, anyway.

[theyeti]

Originally posted by intjudo

...this from Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of belief.net. You can listen to the audio stream at http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown...prgDate=current

Yeah, I heard this on the radio on the way home yesterday. I was cringing the whole time.

He then goes on to quote stats that indicate a majority (in the range of 50 - 75%) of post-graduates in America have "non-rational" beliefs, and that's because they've found "proof" and "evidence" for them in their own personal experiences. He concludes "They certainly cannot argue that religion is just for dumb people."

What I wish he would have mentioned is the fact that these beliefs are lower among people with post-graduate educations. It wouldn't have necessarily changed his point, but it would have at least shown that smart people are more likely to reject superstition.

I also wish he would have mentioned the fact that AFAICT, the majority of atheists, agnostics, etc. think this is a downright stupid idea. This poll is as good an indicator as anything.

Other than those two points, I had to agree with most of what he said.

Added in edit: This part bugged me too:

and that's because they've found "proof" and "evidence" for them in their own personal experiences.

Who exactly has found evidence in their own personal experience for the virgin birth? I can understand someone finding evidence in their personal experience (or at least thinking they have) for the existence of God in general, but as for that laundry list of superstitious belief that made up the poll, those are all things that people accept after they've already bought into religion. No one starts out with belief in the virgin birth from their personal experience and reasons from there that God exists. It works the other way around: You believe in things like the virigin birth as an act of faith, because you believe in God.

theyeti

[butswana]

I heard the NPR thing too. He started off well enough, but the evidence/education stuff was spun a little too much. What did Mark Twain say about statistics?
If I didn't know better I would initially think that who ever started this "bright" mess was a fundy trying to rally the troops against us infidels.

[Buffman]

excreationist

I didn't do a very good job of expressing my thoughts on this issue....primarily because I don't have many very worthwhile thoughts concerning it. The last definition at Wikipedia seems to summarize my general view:

Rationalism may also be used to refer to a philosophy that human behaviour and values should be based primarily on rationality, as opposed to emotion or dogma.

The Modern (American) Rationalist suggestion was no more than my effort to find an acceptable "label" for generalized usage. Modern (Australian)/(German)/(Chinese)/(Etc.) Rationalist being used for those desirous of finding a geographical identity "label."---The International Rationalist for those seeking a non-nationalist identity.

The Christian Coalition doesn't come close to representing all Christians any more than the Moral Majority represented all moral people. They are/were collective umbrella "labels" for public consumption, recruitment and propaganda platforms. I seriously doubt that folks who don't/didn't belong to the CC or MM run/ran around thinking of themselves as unChristian or immoral. The real problem was, and is, that there isn't a meaningful counter force capable of pointing out that the CC isn't very Christian and that the MM wasn't very moral...and getting their case before the general public.

Personally I view the "Brights" business as just the most recent PR effort to repackage 'non-supernaturalism' in a publicly acceptable term that avoids previous, negatively categorized, "labels" and that could help to bring together all the disparate non-believers as an effective, collective, bulwark against the onset of a new religious Dark Ages in ways that the "Godless March on Washington" did not.

Maybe we could "label" ourselves as Scientific Moralists. The SM Party. The Sado-Masochist Party because we seem to get our jollies off tearing each other apart instead of developing better ways to recruit folks to our world views without resort to superstition, myths and fear/reward conditioning techniques.

[dangin]

The poll is almost 3-1 against, with the 1 including the three other options.

The more I think about it, the more I like just calling myself an atheist.

[TheGreatInfidel]

How about a poll about whether we should simply use "naturalist" instead of "bright"?

[Division By Zero]

"Atheist" has such a solid ring to it. Why would I want to give it up for a goofy word like "Bright?" :D

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Buffman
....The last definition at Wikipedia seems to summarize my general view:

Rationalism may also be used to refer to a philosophy that human behaviour and values should be based primarily on rationality, as opposed to emotion or dogma.
But many people have claimed to have proved the existence of God through reason... (e.g. Chris Langan, Frank Tipler) so according to that quote from Wikipedia, the term doesn't specifically exclude theists...
On second thoughts, that quote seems to be referring to morality (human behaviour and values)...

[intjudo]

Originally quoted by theyeti

What I wish he would have mentioned is the fact that these beliefs are lower among people with post-graduate educations. It wouldn't have necessarily changed his point, but it would have at least shown that smart people are more likely to reject superstition.


Yeah. Also, I'd like to see what percentage of people held irrational beliefs 1,000 years ago vs. today. It would show that over time the human race's view of the universe is becoming more rational.

[Buffman]

ex.

I guess I would like to have those claiming that they have validated the existence of a supernatural God explain why that god isn't Zeus. Do these folks claim that they used reason to determine that the world isn't flat or that the earth isn't the center of the universe.? IOW, what verifiable evidence do they offer to support the claim that their reasoning is valid? I can reason that we were planted here by space travelers. Proving it is a whole different kettle of fish.

Perhaps humans are merely obtaining better methods of validating or invalidating the various claims rather than becoming more rational.

[southernhybrid]

Originally posted by Division By Zero
"Atheist" has such a solid ring to it. Why would I want to give it up for a goofy word like "Bright?" :D

I call myself an atheist all the time but I'm beginning to hate that word because it is so closely associated with theism. Why should my beliefs be associated with theism? It gives theism too much credibility and importance AFAIC.

I don't know if bright will catch on but I love the concept of creating a word that is not associated with theism in any way. I consider my beliefs to be positive, and life affirming. That's why I'm beginning to hate the word atheist. It says nothing positive about my beliefs. It only says what I don't believe. Can you understand that viewpoint at least?

Actually, a 25% approval rate is pretty good for something this new and controversial. Of course this survey is in no way scientific. I went to a discussion recently on this subject and there were only one or two people who objected to bright and they're objections were pretty mild. In that group, about 90% approved or were neutral. I think this is a very interesting thing to follow. I agree pretty much with what Buffman said below.

Personally I view the "Brights" business as just the most recent PR effort to repackage 'non-supernaturalism' in a publicly acceptable term that avoids previous, negatively categorized, "labels" and that could help to bring together all the disparate non-believers as an effective, collective, bulwark against the onset of a new religious Dark Ages in ways that the "Godless March on Washington" did not.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
...I don't know if bright will catch on but I love the concept of creating a word that is not associated with theism in any way. I consider my beliefs to be positive, and life affirming. That's why I'm beginning to hate the word atheist. It says nothing positive about my beliefs....
"Naturalist" is also a positive term.... though it doesn't sound as cheery (or pretentious) as "Bright" does.

Actually, a 25% approval rate is pretty good for something this new and controversial.
25% of the people don't explicitly disapprove of the term - in this poll only 10-11% explicitly support it. I don't think a lack of disapproval automatically means approval.

[Viti]

southernhybrid

My stance on god belief=atheist
my worldview=Humanist

I agree, I want a positive definition for myself. Humanist works well for me

[tensorproduct]

I voted no, for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else.

I call myself an atheist or an agnostic depending on my mood. Agnostic atheist if I want to be specific. I like the word infidel because it's short, catchy and, while most people will know what it means, not many would be familiar with it in everyday use.

[copernicus]

It is very difficult to defend a new term like "Bright" in a forum that is dominated by people who spend much of their time defending atheism and socializing with others who share their intellectual commitment to religious skepticism. Very few of us in this forum are embarrassed by labels like "atheist" or "skeptic" or "infidel", and it seems a bit disloyal to succumb to the indignity of euphemism for terms that you aren't ashamed of. So why does anyone bother to support such an insult to atheism?

In my case, I see this forum as an island of sanity in a sea of supernaturalist nonsense. However, we all have to swim in that sea every day. I'm tired of drowning in it. I see the new label as something of a life raft for myself and other religious skeptics when we're out far from shore. If the label has no other use, it can at least defuse the natural revulsion that so many otherwise well-intentioned people seem to feel is their right to direct against atheists, agnostics, secularists, and other nefarious over-intellectualized groups.

So, I'll use the label as it suits me. If I never find occasion to use it, I'm not going to stomp all over it or the people who came up with it. I don't disagree with all the criticisms of brightism, but I don't agree with the level of outrage and abuse that has been directed at those who have supported the idea. Every time I think that the movement has enjoyed its 5 minutes of fame, I see more of my active atheist friends coming to kick the corpse around some more. :) If the term does catch on, it may only be because discussions like this have kept it around long enough for people to get used to it. Don't forget that there are far more atheists out there than the numbers of people who inhabit these forums. Those who are "far from the shore" of this island may have more use for the idea. Let it float around some more and see if a few strangers to our community who find themselves in need of help grab on to it.

[Buffman]

copernicus

Hear! Hear!

It's just another label in the seemingly endless parade of labels around which like minded folks attempt to rally.

southernhybrid

I consider my beliefs to be positive, and life affirming.

Hear! Hear!

LadyShea

My stance on god belief=atheist
my worldview=Humanist

Exactly!

In a nation/country/society that is 80-85% theist, the word atheist = "NAZI/EVIL." Should it? Of course not! However, the real nazis have a better propaganda machine than the non-believers. So, until the non-believers are able to mount an effective counter/successful-PR program, folks who take a particular, and perhaps somewhat defensively arrogant, pride in labeling themselves as atheists are, IMO, only inviting a further divisive and ineffectual enlightenment campaign.

I have watched the development of the sub-categories of weak/strong atheists, weak/strong agnostics, metaphysical naturalists, scientific humanists, rationalists, secualarists, skeptics, freethinkers, ...just about everything that can be used to attempt to describe what and why an individual believes as they do. "Brights" is just the latest effort to combine all these similar non-believers under a single banner for the purposes of mounting a PR campaign with any chance of success.

copernicus has posted a marvelous overview of what I have been stumbling around attempting to express. (Thank you.)

[Bright Life]

I personally voted for "I don't care"

I'm not "signed up" as a bright. That seemed kinda silly to me.

The reason I chose this particular SN was so y'all would know where I stand.


from the bright site

A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A Bright's worldview is free of
supernatural and mystical elements.
The ethics and actions of a Bright
are based on a naturalistic worldview.

I'd never use the term in conversation...It's just a joke between friends :p

If you read my other posts, you'll find that I can be both serious and silly. So take it as you will:D

[Oresta]

I, too, object to labels in general. As a former public school teacher, I have seen the destructive effect a school's early labels have on students throughout the rest of their formal education years. Furthermore, I don't wear my self-described label "Atheist" on my sleeve.
However, my own experience has led me to label myself firmly and squarely to others who ask as an atheist. It succinctly leaves no doubt as to where I am on the belief/non-belief spectrum to whomever asks.
I arrived at this position because my surname is Italian, which frequently has led to assumptions that I am Roman Catholic -- a kind of religio-profiling, perhaps. When I would correct the assumer, I was invariably asked my religion. In my youth - lo, these 50 years past - I would answer, "No religion," which was certainly an honest and inocent one. The problem was that my answer invariably led to the assumption that 'no religion" meant no Christian religion. Therfore, I was in a Christian vacuum, waiting to be fulfilled with the "true" religion of the assumer.
As the assumee, I finally decided the short cut to clarification between the assumee and the assumer was to use a precise and exacting term in which there is no solipcism between the two of us. They kmow the territory that lays between them and me.

[Oresta]

I, too, object to labels in general. As a former public school teacher, I have seen the destructive effect a school's early labels have on students throughout the rest of their formal education years. Furthermore, I don't wear my self-described label "Atheist" on my sleeve.
However, my own experience has led me to label myself firmly and squarely as an "Atheist". The label succinctly leaves no doubt as to where I am on the belief/non-belief spectrum.
I arrived at this position because my surname is Italian, which frequently has led to assumptions that I am Roman Catholic. (Religio-profiling, perhaps?) When I would tell the assumer I wasn't Catholic, I was invariably asked my religion. I would answer, "No religion," an honest and innocent one, but one which led to the assumption that "no religion" meant no Christian religion. Therefore, I was in a Christian vacuum, waiting to be fulfilled with the "true" religion of the assumer.
As the assumee, I finally decided the short cut to clarification between the assumee and the assumor was to use a precise and exacting term in which there is no solipcism between the two of us. Christians clearly understand there is no common territory that lies between them and atheists; it is territory fraught with landmines, should they attempt to evangelize. Christian witnesser, enter my territory at your own risk. I have found simply uttering "Atheist" works better than bug spray.
For the life of me - and I intend my life to be acerbic enough on important Church State Separation issues issues to keep me alive for at least 1.5 score more years* - I cannot understand why anyone with all the combined gifts of intelligent, informed, perceptive, and rational thinking would hide behind a term like "Bright". Why would a non-theist, whatever his/her nuance of this non/belief, not want to tell a theist - or more importantly those evangelists hell bent on subverting the Constitution - exactly where he/she stands in relation to the natural universe? Why dissemble?


*I am counting on making it as an articulate, cogent activist into my low nineties. My grandfather did.

[Mr. Neutron]

I voted NO to this "Brights" nonsense.

I much prefer Miserable Fat Belgian Bastards.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by copernicus
It is very difficult to defend a new term like "Bright" in a forum that is dominated by people who spend much of their time defending atheism and socializing with others who share their intellectual commitment to religious skepticism.
If you participate in the formal debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59204) you only have one opponent to reply to...

Very few of us in this forum are embarrassed by labels like "atheist" or "skeptic" or "infidel", and it seems a bit disloyal to succumb to the indignity of euphemism for terms that you aren't ashamed of.
I don't care about loyalties. BTW, I think being called an "infidel" is kind of silly since it seems fairly vague - like "heretic". If you read the Brights' site (http://www.the-brights.net/backtalk.htm#Euphemism) you'd have read them say that the term is not a euphemism. (It is a replacement for naturalist or metaphysical naturalist and those terms aren't seen in a negative way by the general public since they wouldn't be familiar with them.)

So why does anyone bother to support such an insult to atheism?
Partly they'd concentrate on the light and cheery aspects of "Bright" and ignore the intelligence aspects of the word. They'd like to have a light and cheery term describing them. And it is fresh, and it is an umbrella term so it can describe a lot of different types of people. (Basically atheists and agnostics who don't believe in the supernatural)

I see the new label as something of a life raft for myself and other religious skeptics when we're out far from shore. If the label has no other use, it can at least defuse the natural revulsion that so many otherwise well-intentioned people seem to feel is their right to direct against atheists, agnostics, secularists, and other nefarious over-intellectualized groups.
Well it isn't very successful amongst theists - e.g. see that NPR show (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/132/story_13212_1.html&storyID=13212&boardID=63366) - I think the host was a theist...
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=23514
NYTimes letters... (One letter is quoted there - I can't be bothered logging into NY Times)

So, I'll use the label as it suits me. If I never find occasion to use it, I'm not going to stomp all over it or the people who came up with it.
Some of us have just been pointing out that a tiny group of people thought up the term - without doing "market research"..... this accounts for why there are so many people who don't like or hate the term being used to describe themselves.

I don't disagree with all the criticisms of brightism, but I don't agree with the level of outrage and abuse that has been directed at those who have supported the idea.
If you are calling atheists and agnostics who hate the term "Brights" Brights, they have a reason to speak out since it is affecting them. If a person only calls themself a Bright then that doesn't really affect other people.

...If the term does catch on, it may only be because discussions like this have kept it around long enough for people to get used to it....
So what are you complaining about... :)

Don't forget that there are far more atheists out there than the numbers of people who inhabit these forums. Those who are "far from the shore" of this island may have more use for the idea. Let it float around some more and see if a few strangers to our community who find themselves in need of help grab on to it.
Hopefully there is SOMEONE out there who is willing to have a 1 on 1 debate here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59204). I mean it would be interesting to watch but maybe just make the division been pro-Brights and anti-Brights bigger.

BTW, I got a reply from Mynga from The-Brights.Net (http://www.the-brights.net) - part of it says:
Actually, we're less committed to the term than to the definition and the movement itself, but for now, the prickly term is drawing lots of interest (meme action), and lots of signups of Brights. I'd say, let's grow the constituency large enough, and we can decide what we'd like to be called. [African Americans have gone through several terms over my lifetime.]

[copernicus]

Thanks for the detailed reply, excreationist. You are among many who seem to have taken serious offense to the idea.

It is very difficult to defend a new term like "Bright" in a forum that is dominated by people who spend much of their time defending atheism and socializing with others who share their intellectual commitment to religious skepticism.

If you participate in the formal debate (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59204) you only have one opponent to reply to...
You must have misunderstood my point. I was only trying to explain why lots of people in II might take offense to the idea, even though most atheists in the world might feel less offended. It comes off as insulting to us, since part of our purpose is to defend the use of the traditional terms. I did originally agree to participate in that debate, BTW, if no one else came forward. At this point in time, I'm not sure what a formal debate would accomplish. We've had several argument threads, and we've all repeated the pros and cons pretty thoroughly.

I don't care about loyalties. BTW, I think being called an "infidel" is kind of silly since it seems fairly vague - like "heretic". If you read the Brights' site (http://www.the-brights.net/backtalk.htm#Euphemism) you'd have read them say that the term is not a euphemism. (It is a replacement for naturalist or metaphysical naturalist and those terms aren't seen in a negative way by the general public since they wouldn't be familiar with them.)
The term "euphemism" is a technical linguistic term, and what the web site says about euphemism is just mistaken. It was inspired by the euphemistic replacement of "gay" for "homosexual". I also wrote Mynga and made some other pedantic points about her grammatical discussion, e.g. that bright movement is really a compound word rather than a simple phrase containing an adjective modifier.

Partly they'd concentrate on the light and cheery aspects of "Bright" and ignore the intelligence aspects of the word. They'd like to have a light and cheery term describing them. And it is fresh, and it is an umbrella term so it can describe a lot of different types of people. (Basically atheists and agnostics who don't believe in the supernatural)
I consider it a little more than that. The object of bringing in a new word was also to stir the pot of public controversy again. It worked. Not only did it throw traditional atheist communities such as ours into an uproar, but it got a lot of publicity in the mainstream press, including the NPR interview.

Well it isn't very successful amongst theists - e.g. see that NPR show (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/132/story_13212_1.html&storyID=13212&boardID=63366) - I think the host was a theist...
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=23514
NYTimes letters... (One letter is quoted there - I can't be bothered logging into NY Times)
The very fact that the discussion of the word made it to an NPR interview achieved one of the goals--to raise the consciousness of people about the way society treats irreligious people. BTW, that interview was the first time that I had even heard the term.

Some of us have just been pointing out that a tiny group of people thought up the term - without doing "market research"..... this accounts for why there are so many people who don't like or hate the term being used to describe themselves.
The idea is infeasible. There is no money for market research, nor is the purpose to get consensus in the atheist community for the use of such a term. Other cases of euphemism--"gay" for "homosexual" or "African American" for "Black"--did not get adopted after market research or some kind of public vetting process. People seldom vote on the words they use. The words either get used or they don't. Nobody owns the language. Calling attention to a word, as we are doing here, only makes it more likely that the word will stick. In a way, the very fact that we are having this discussion improves the chances of the survival of the term. It is a bit like trying to decrease the popularity of a book by attempting to censor it. After Al Franken got sued by Fox, Bill Maher complained bitterly that he deserved to be sued as well. :)

If you are calling atheists and agnostics who hate the term "Brights" Brights, they have a reason to speak out since it is affecting them. If a person only calls themself a Bright then that doesn't really affect other people.
I don't quite see how the term does you any more harm than the term "atheist" does. You can object to any label you want or the very idea of labelling people. Liberals, especially liberal politicians, very often object strenuously to being called "liberal". Some prefer the euphemism "progressive". Others think that liberals should try to defend the use of "liberal".

BTW, I got a reply from Mynga...
She is good about responding to email. I also wrote her and pointed out the uproar on II. Here was part of her reply to me:

Indeed, we seek allies quite apart from any fundamentalist(?) religious skeptics who take pride in their alienation from the public (although we of course invite all who fit the definition to be counted), but if we are to bring the naturalistic worldview (on matters of social good as well as ultimate concern) out of the closet and into the forefront in our culture so people can contribute on a level playing field with religious folk, it won't be done by those who keep the heat up talking to each other in the blogs and forums and ignore the consequences to "the many out there" who are culturally stigmatized and silent. (Maybe it won't be done by the Brights, either...but we want to try.)

The controversy about "the word" does help to spread the idea as well as the term, and there is some indication of consciousness raising actually going on! As signups show, there are among us a great many people who do want to stand FOR and not just against. It'll be a pretty long haul for sure, but we're off! Thanks for your support in those "hot exchanges" like the II forums.

Mynga

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by southernhybrid
I call myself an atheist all the time but I'm beginning to hate that word because it is so closely associated with theism. Why should my beliefs be associated with theism? It gives theism too much credibility and importance AFAIC.

I don't know if bright will catch on but I love the concept of creating a word that is not associated with theism in any way. I consider my beliefs to be positive, and life affirming. That's why I'm beginning to hate the word atheist. It says nothing positive about my beliefs. It only says what I don't believe. Can you understand that viewpoint at least?
Yes, of course I can. I don't use "Atheist" to fully describe myself, either, because it doesn't work. I use it describe my religious beliefs (or lack of them, rather).

The Brights web site, though, also says that the term "Bright" is used for anyone with a naturalistic world view, and implies nothing else about their beliefs. If you asked me what my basic outlook and world view was, I'd tell you I'm a humanist. If I said I was a Bright, you wouldn't be very informed.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the goals of the movement, I just don't like their choice of name at all. I can see how it could be used to show a positive outlook on life, but when I hear the term "Bright," that's not what I think of. Even the official website states that the term just means "free of supernaturalism," and nothing more. It feels like a loaded word to me, like they're supposed to be on a higher plane of thought than other people. The site itself uses words like "free of" and "beyond" religion and supernaturalism.

Like others have already said, who are the non-Brights? The Dims?

And even without all that, I still think it's a goofy name. :D

[ScumDog]

Like others have already said, who are the non-Brights? The Dims?You're using the word as an adjective, which the website explicitly said it shouldn't be. Use it as a noun, like you just did - Non-Brights. That's all they are.

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by ScumDog
You're using the word as an adjective, which the website explicitly said it shouldn't be. Use it as a noun, like you just did - Non-Brights. That's all they are.
Well, since the word itself is an adjective, it's a little hard not to do that. The dictionary word "bright" can mean well-illuminated, or it can mean intelligent. If you make a noun out of a word like that, its connotations are going to go right along with it, and in a case like this, it sounds condescending to "non-Brights," intentionally or not.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by copernicus
She is good about responding to email. I also wrote her and pointed out the uproar on II. Here was part of her reply to me:

Quote:

Indeed, we seek allies quite apart from any fundamentalist(?) religious skeptics who take pride in their alienation from the public (although we of course invite all who fit the definition to be counted), but if we are to bring the naturalistic worldview (on matters of social good as well as ultimate concern) out of the closet and into the forefront in our culture so people can contribute on a level playing field with religious folk, it won't be done by those who keep the heat up talking to each other in the blogs and forums and ignore the consequences to "the many out there" who are culturally stigmatized and silent. (Maybe it won't be done by the Brights, either...but we want to try.)

The controversy about "the word" does help to spread the idea as well as the term, and there is some indication of consciousness raising actually going on! As signups show, there are among us a great many people who do want to stand FOR and not just against. It'll be a pretty long haul for sure, but we're off! Thanks for your support in those "hot exchanges" like the II forums.

Mynga
Ugh. How offensive. I wonder what, if anything, Mynga knows about IIDB. Not that the implication that we are all fundamentalist religious skeptics who take pride in our alienation from the public comes as any surprise. It must take a fairly massive ego to coin and promote a ridiculous term that is supposed to characterize the worldview of millions of people with the apparent intention of making it stupid sounding enough to generate a hostile controversy, presumably to promote the ideology behind it.

From everything I've read of Paul and Mynga, they are elitist simpletons who seem to firmly believe that "don't worry, be happy" and "turn that frown upside down" are profound philosophical statements. I'm glad to see their ridiculous coup attempt flopping around on the sand of reason, and I'll be smiling as the last bubble of air pops out of its gills.

But other than that, I have no real problem with the word.

vm

[livius drusus]

So I'm a fundamentalist religious skeptic who takes pride in my alienation from the public just because I wouldn't call myself a bright on a dare. I see. Copernicus, if you have an opportunity to comminicate further with that great thinker and setter of trends, kindly tell her that her bullshit assumptions are more alienating than anything a theist has ever said to me. And unlike her ivory tower ass, I live in the Bible Belt.

[ScumDog]

Originally posted by Division By Zero
Well, since the word itself is an adjective, it's a little hard not to do that. The dictionary word "bright" can mean well-illuminated, or it can mean intelligent. If you make a noun out of a word like that, its connotations are going to go right along with it, and in a case like this, it sounds condescending to "non-Brights," intentionally or not. No...the world itself is what the word-user makes it. Bright is meant to be a noun in this case, so don't treat it like an adjective. Yes it has connotations for it, but so did 'gay' and we aren't complaining now.

[openeyes]

Say what you will about the founders of the term "Brights"; I say at least there are some people out there who are willing to stick their necks out to try to do something major and positive outside of our little online support community.

Many of us are doing what we can in our communities to dissuade people of the notion that religion in needed in public places and non-believers are a major problem, but the more we can induce a discussion in the mainstream media, the better for us I say. I think we can stand up to scrutiny if anyone cares to dig a little deeper.

For the record, one of the local papers used the term (in a list with the usual suspects) when discussing an atheist conference held in the area. In a general sense, outside of whether they mentioned "Brights" or not, it was heartening to see the conference discussed as an event that was important to some members of the community. I think the recent round of publicity concerning the term may give editors a reason to look at the non-supernaturalists point of view and do a story.

[Division By Zero]

Originally posted by ScumDog
No...the world itself is what the word-user makes it. Bright is meant to be a noun in this case, so don't treat it like an adjective.
Yes, it's meant to be a noun here. But how did they come up with that noun? They probably didn't come up with the term "Brights" just because they liked the word "bright."

Yes it has connotations for it, but so did 'gay' and we aren't complaining now.
Wasn't that word originally used by other people, with the intent of being negative, before it was adopted by homosexuals themselves? (Of course, maybe I'm wrong.) It probably helps that the original meaning of the word has pretty much fallen out of use.

I do see what you're trying to say, though. Personally, I feel strongly enough about the term to post a message, but not strongly enough to argue about it :)

If the term actually catches on, that's fine with me; but given the way it makes their motives for choosing it look, I don't think it will.

[Toto]

I doubt that Mynga meant to imply that everyone who doesn't like "Bright" and chooses to call themselves an atheist is a " fundamentalist(?) religious skeptic who takes pride in their alienation from the public " But we all know or have heard of someone who fits that definition, or know that the public believes that stereotype about atheists (the old "village atheist" engaged in pointless rebellion against authority).

Please don't try to twist her words to create more ill will than exists.

Mynga is not an elitist or a simpleton. She is involved in secondary school education. She is behind the web site Teaching about Religion (dot org) (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/) and Teaching about Religion (dot com) Focus on Freethought (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/).

I personally do not like the word Bright, but I know very well that my tastes are not part of the majority, and a capitalist would go broke using me as part of a focus group.

This is the first attempt I know of to market Freethought under any terms. I'm content to sit back and see if it sticks, which it probably won't, and see what comes of it.

People who succeed in business or other endeavors usually have a string of bankruptcies and failures behind them before they succeed. If you just sit around and complain that the world is not the way you want it to be, you'll never get anywhere.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by openeyes
Say what you will about the founders of the term "Brights"; I say at least there are some people out there who are willing to stick their necks out to try to do something major and positive outside of our little online support community.

Tossing together a paltry website to play word games is not what I call something major and positive outside the online community. Their goals are illdefined at best and I have yet to see one single example of real hands-on activism from the creators of the movement or its "joiners".

Quite the opposite, in fact. They specifically tailor their message to people who have never expended effort to effectuate a positive change in the way atheists are perceived in this country in favor of hawking a cosmetic modification which requires no effort beyond saying the word to call itself activism.

Are there roving packs of Brights out there feeding the hungry or building low-income housing or visiting AIDS hospices or even organizing a meager little letter-writing campaign about any one of the hundreds of issues of direct import to the nontheist community? If so, kindly point them out to me. So far, all I've seem them do do is talk.

You can call that activism if you want, but I call it cheapening the term and insulting the thousands of real activists out there putting their livelihoods on the line every single day.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Toto
I doubt that Mynga meant to imply that everyone who doesn't like "Bright" and chooses to call themselves an atheist is a " fundamentalist(?) religious skeptic who takes pride in their alienation from the public " But we all know or have heard of someone who fits that definition, or know that the public believes that stereotype about atheists (the old "village atheist" engaged in pointless rebellion against authority).

Please don't try to twist her words to create more ill will than exists.
It wasn’t my intention to twist her words. I doubt that she meant to imply what you’re saying either. I believe she meant everyone here (at IIDB), not just those who don't like "Bright" and choose to call themselves an atheist. Unless I have misinterpreted what copernicus said, he e-mailed Mynga re: the heated debate here, and her response in part was:
"Indeed, we seek allies quite apart from any fundamentalist(?) religious skeptics who take pride in their alienation from the public..." In that context, if she wasn't talking about the IIDB membership who was she talking about?

Mynga is not an elitist or a simpleton. She is involved in secondary school education. She is behind the web site Teaching about Religion (dot org) (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/) and Teaching about Religion (dot com) Focus on Freethought (http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/).
You may be right. It probably would have been more appropriate to say she’s an elitist with a simplistic worldview. Frankly, I don’t personally know how anyone could read through the Brights website, and all the literature at the websites you reference (as I have) and not come away with the same opinion I did. It is appropriate, in my opinion, that Mynga writes mostly for the benefit of elementary school educators.

I personally do not like the word Bright, but I know very well that my tastes are not part of the majority, and a capitalist would go broke using me as part of a focus group.

This is the first attempt I know of to market Freethought under any terms. I'm content to sit back and see if it sticks, which it probably won't, and see what comes of it. I’m finally enjoying the show myself. It bugged the shit out of me when it seemed like it might actually gain widespread support. Watching it fall of the radar has been delightful. I’m glad Mynga is committed to promoting it regardless, though, ‘cause otherwise my other prediction (that ‘Bright’ would be to naturalists what ‘fundie’ is to supernaturalists) might never come true.

People who succeed in business or other endeavors usually have a string of bankruptcies and failures behind them before they succeed. If you just sit around and complain that the world is not the way you want it to be, you'll never get anywhere. So our choices are sit around and complain or promote the first stupid idea that pops into our head? Why not combine the better parts of the two: sit around and think of something better before acting.

vm

[Toto]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Unless I have misinterpreted what copernicus said, he e-mailed Mynga re: the heated debate here, and her response in part was:
"Indeed, we seek allies quite apart from any fundamentalist(?) religious skeptics who take pride in their alienation from the public..." In that context, if she wasn't talking about the IIDB membership who was she talking about?

...

She was talking about exactly what she said - people who adopt an atheist stance just to piss off their parents, or the hypothetical person that the religious moderate likes to argue against, referenced in the NPR commentary - the person who adopts an air of intellectual superiority to dismiss someone else's religious beliefs.

Yes, she is writing for middle school students, not philosophy PhDs. But what level do you think American politics operates on?

I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath and think about things. What we are doing is not working. A religious fundamentalist is in the White House and most atheists are afraid to open their mouths in public. The Brights movement could be just a step to a better strategy - but if you have a better plan, what is it?

[copernicus]

Originally posted by Toto
I doubt that Mynga meant to imply that everyone who doesn't like "Bright" and chooses to call themselves an atheist is a "fundamentalist(?) religious skeptic who takes pride in their alienation from the public " But we all know or have heard of someone who fits that definition, or know that the public believes that stereotype about atheists (the old "village atheist" engaged in pointless rebellion against authority).
Thanks, Toto. That was exactly what she meant in the context of her email to me. She does not look down on people who inhabit forums such as this, but the goal of the Bright movement is acceptance from society at large. Internet debates alone will not achieve that. I also agree with your perception of the label "Bright". Unfortunately, I can't think of a better label myself, and this one has some momentum behind it.

Originally posted by livius drusus
Are there roving packs of Brights out there feeding the hungry or building low-income housing or visiting AIDS hospices or even organizing a meager little letter-writing campaign about any one of the hundreds of issues of direct import to the nontheist community? If so, kindly point them out to me. So far, all I've seem them do do is talk.
Livius, I can't quite understand your point. Are you saying that the goal of social acceptability for nontheists is not worth pursuing? Are you saying that we should be setting up Bright charities or AIDS hospices? The Bright movement is still trying to build public momentum and awareness. They haven't even asked for any money. Are you saying that it has to be an instant success in order for it to be worthy of our support?

You can call that activism if you want, but I call it cheapening the term and insulting the thousands of real activists out there putting their livelihoods on the line every single day.
I'm sorry, but I don't see the Bright movement as an insult to other social activists. I don't know whether you have made the kind of sacrifices that you expect from others, but I do think that those who have been backing the Bright movement do qualify as bona fide activists. I'm not ready to nominate them for sainthood or anything, but I'm also not ready to demonize them for the effrontery of trying to support my cause either.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Toto
She was talking about exactly what she said - people who adopt an atheist stance just to piss off their parents, or the hypothetical person that the religious moderate likes to argue against, referenced in the NPR commentary - the person who adopts an air of intellectual superiority to dismiss someone else's religious beliefs. We both read exactly the same thing and interpreted it in two different ways. How can you say definitively that your perception is the correct one?

Yes, she is writing for middle school students, not philosophy PhDs. But what level do you think American politics operates on? A fair point. In fact I shouldn't have made that crack and I knew it when I did. It was an irrelevant dig.

I think everyone here needs to take a deep breath and think about things. I've been debating this issue for what seems like months now, and have breathed quite a bit in the duration. I still think the Brights movement is dumb.

What we are doing is not working. A religious fundamentalist is in the White House and most atheists are afraid to open their mouths in public. The Brights movement could be just a step to a better strategy - Whereas politicians are lining up to talk about being 'Brights'? Or will ever line up to talk about being 'Brights'? FWIW, I conceded a long time ago that naturalists as a group could use a PR facelift. I just don't think coining a stupid word does any good. If the real reason for choosing 'Bright' was only to stir the pot and get people talking, and there's no real committment to the term by the movement, why do they expend so much energy on their site talking about the word itself?

but if you have a better plan, what is it? Isn't this some kind of common fallacy encompassed by a catchy Latin phrase I can employ instead of having to say this every time: Why should I have to produce a better plan to earn the right to say that this one is ineffective?

vm

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by copernicus
Thanks, Toto. That was exactly what she meant in the context of her email to me. She does not look down on people who inhabit forums such as this, but the goal of the Bright movement is acceptance from society at large. Internet debates alone will not achieve that. I also agree with your perception of the label "Bright". Unfortunately, I can't think of a better label myself, and this one has some momentum behind it. Just curious: Did she say, "I don't look down on people who inhabit forums such as the Internet Infidels"? Because otherwise I don't know how you could say with certainty that she doesn't.

In fact in the final section of what may be the longest sentence ever constructed by a professional educator, she states: "it won't be done by those who keep the heat up talking to each other in the blogs and forums and ignore the consequences to "the many out there" who are culturally stigmatized and silent."

That to me sounds like a generalized opinion that people who participate in discussion boards such as these don't consider the effects of their harsh words on the masses, and is typical of her oft-touted "Blowing sunshine up our butts to cure what ails us" philosophy. No offense to your flower-child sensibilities, coper. ;)

vm

[copernicus]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Just curious: Did she say, "I don't look down on people who inhabit forums such as the Internet Infidels"? Because otherwise I don't know how you could say with certainty that she doesn't.
VM, you seem to have your antenna out for catching insults. I did not quote our entire exchange, and I probably should not have quoted her without her consent.

In fact in the final section of what may be the longest sentence ever constructed by a professional educator, she states: "it won't be done by those who keep the heat up talking to each other in the blogs and forums and ignore the consequences to "the many out there" who are culturally stigmatized and silent."
You seem intent on heaping all the abuse you can think of on her. Does your own rhetoric have to be so abusive? She was only agreeing with my own opinion that the internet community represented a small minority of the nontheist community out there.

That to me sounds like a generalized opinion that people who participate in discussion boards such as these don't consider the effects of their harsh words on the masses, and is typical of her oft-touted "Blowing sunshine up our butts to cure what ails us" philosophy. No offense to your flower-child sensibilities, coper. ;)
Again, she was only responding to a point that I had made, and it did not strike me as a general attack on people like myself, who spend a lot of time in these debate forums. Your emotional tone does not strike me as that of someone who has "taken a deep breath" before thinking. I can understand your opposition, but I can't understand the level of personal invective.

[Toto]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
We both read exactly the same thing and interpreted it in two different ways. How can you say definitively that your perception is the correct one?

I've met Mynga, and I can't say that I know her well, but I can read that and interpret it in the way that makes the most sense, without a chip on my shoulder.

. . .I still think the Brights movement is dumb.

You can think that it's dumb. But why are you investing so much energy in it, as if it were a personal insult? That's the only reason to stop and take a breath.

. . . Why should I have to produce a better plan to earn the right to say that this one is ineffective?

vm

You have the right to say that it's ineffective, but you're doing a lot more.

In the early days of advertising, it was assumed that people would respond best to rational arguments about why you need to buy product X. Advertisers quickly found out that people do not respond to rational arguments, but respond to subliminal clues, superficial attributes, the color of the package, etc.

Knowing that, all rational advertisers spend their time and effort on packaging and image.

Atheists are like people who produce widgets and expect the public to buy them based on rational arguments, paying no attention to marketing. People who follow this business plan go out of business quickly.

Having said that, The Brights may turn out to be marketing Edsels or New Coke. But at some point, it would be better to put your energy into finding a better strategy than fuming about theirs.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by copernicus
VM, you seem to have your antenna out for catching insults. I did not quote our entire exchange, and I probably should not have quoted her without her consent. Catching insults doesn't really require any special antennae, just careful attention. I can't imagine a context in which that bit you quoted would not be offensive to me. And I don't think you were wrong to post the letter. You presumably contacted her in her capacity as co-director of the Brights movement, so I would think she would expect her response to be treated like any other movement PR literature.

You seem intent on heaping all the abuse you can think of on her. Does your own rhetoric have to be so abusive? She was only agreeing with my own opinion that the internet community represented a small minority of the nontheist community out there. Oh come on now. Making a crack about the fact that a professional educator wrote an extremely long run-on sentence is 'abuse'? I think you're overreacting a little bit. I must say I'm impressed at the fierce loyalty she has managed to garner from her disciples, though. From what I understand that's the trickiest part. ;)

Again, she was only responding to a point that I had made, and it did not strike me as a general attack on people like myself, who spend a lot of time in these debate forums. Your emotional tone does not strike me as that of someone who has "taken a deep breath" before thinking. I can understand your opposition, but I can't understand the level of personal invective. As I said, it didn't strike me as a general attack either. It struck me as a specific attack on die-hard (fundamentalist?) religious skeptics, and in particular the membership here.

You're right, though. Without reading the whole thing in context I can't really gauge the tenor of it. But although I'd like to trust your interpretation as much as Toto's, and say, "Oh, I get it now. She just meant the anti-Bright wacko's like me, not everyone here", I just can't. I can't, because I know your opinion closely resembles hers, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't interpret her comments as critical.

And although I was just kinda ribbing you about the disciples comment above, I do wonder why I am being so harshly condemned for joking about a silly public figure. I promise no hard feelings toward anyone if I ever start a national campaign to change the word naturalist to Fluffy™ and people take turns cracking jokes at my expense.

vm

[Oresta]

ScumDog:
No...the world itself is what the word-user makes it. Bright is meant to be a noun in this case, so don't treat it like an adjective. Yes it has connotations for it, but so did 'gay' and we aren't complaining now.

"Gay" and, to some extent, "nigger" have been taken back by those groups from a bigoted majority who gave them these labels with pejorative intent. "Atheist" is a descriptive term in the same sense as "Methodist" or "Pantheist". In no way is "Bright" analogous to these other labels.
The argument that by taking back the name "gay" from the homophobes, homosexuals have gained more favorable coverage in the media and rising acceptance in national polls not only is a confusion of cause and effect, but an ommission of key factors that effected the change, such as canny activism, and political lobbying of gay organizations. Gays are gaining ground because they are coming out of the closet and emerging as a significant voting block.
Calling ourselves "Brights" strikes me as spin or closeting; rather than putting ourselves out there as a group with a legitimate, Constitutional right and, therefore, a special interest.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Toto
I've met Mynga, and I can't say that I know her well, but I can read that and interpret it in the way that makes the most sense, without a chip on my shoulder. You've met Mynga as in had tea with her? Went horseback riding with her? Or as in shook her hand at a book signing? Call it a chip if you must, but I prefer to think of it as being critical. True, if I was a big Mynga fan, as you apparently are, I probably wouldn't have read anything negative into that either. But I'm not, and I did.

I commented before that I think Mynga is an elitist simpleton, but I confess that opinion is based entirely on her written work, particularly re: the Brights movement, and it was probably a harsher characterization than she deserves. But don't misinterpret my fresh animosity at her condescending tripe, as reported by copernicus, as hatred of the Brights movement. My frustration with that particular stupidity has died down considerably in the last weeks, in time with the interest of most of the world.

You can think that it's dumb. But why are you investing so much energy in it, as if it were a personal insult? That's the only reason to stop and take a breath. First, thank you. Second, it is a personal insult. Once again, I'm not talking about the Brights movement. I'm talking about her implication that everyone here (or to give the benefit of the doubt, the Brights detractors here) is a fundamentalist religious skeptic.

You have the right to say that it's ineffective, but you're doing a lot more.
<snip>
Having said that, The Brights may turn out to be marketing Edsels or New Coke. But at some point, it would be better to put your energy into finding a better strategy than fuming about theirs. Thank you again. But as I have said before, as a naturalist I believe I have every right (nay, an obligation) to speak out against an attempt to rally all naturalists under a particular flag to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with it.

Of course you're right about the advertising aspect, and if I was a shareholder of Coke when they came up with the New Coke idea, I would've been at every meeting with my hand in the air saying, "This is a STUPID idea! STOP IT!"

vm

[copernicus]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Catching insults doesn't really require any special antennae, just careful attention.
I'm no expert on the matter, so I'll have to trust what you say. ;)

I can't imagine a context in which that bit you quoted would not be offensive to me. And I don't think you were wrong to post the letter. You presumably contacted her in her capacity as co-director of the Brights movement, so I would think she would expect her response to be treated like any other movement PR literature.
It was a private email, and I now see how easily it can be misinterpreted, so I really should not have posted it. I did not contact her personally, but she responded to email comments that I sent to the web site host. I don't think that she expected to be quoted by me, nor do I think that you have correctly construed her remark. In any case, it would be nice if we could discuss an issue with more substance than an attack on the character of the people who promote brightism.

Oh come on now. Making a crack about the fact that a professional educator wrote an extremely long run-on sentence is 'abuse'? I think you're overreacting a little bit. I must say I'm impressed at the fierce loyalty she has managed to garner from her disciples, though. From what I understand that's the trickiest part. ;)
I perceived the remark as petty and unworthy of you. I don't know why you feel it necessary to refer to me as a "disciple". I have never met Mynga, as has Toto, but I don't understand why you think that it helps your cause to ridicule people. If you think that the "Bright" label is a bad idea, you can express that without all the name-calling and abuse.

You're right, though. Without reading the whole thing in context I can't really gauge the tenor of it. But although I'd like to trust your interpretation as much as Toto's, and say, "Oh, I get it now. She just meant the anti-Bright wacko's like me, not everyone here", I just can't. I can't, because I know your opinion closely resembles hers, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't interpret her comments as critical.
I really don't understand why you persist in personal attacks of this sort. I understand why the attempt to float the name "Bright" is offensive to many in this forum, but I don't understand why you go to such lengths to smear those of us who have voiced support for the idea. It really isn't necessary.

And although I was just kinda ribbing you about the disciples comment above, I do wonder why I am being so harshly condemned for joking about a silly public figure. I promise no hard feelings toward anyone if I ever start a national campaign to change the word naturalist to Fluffy™ and people take turns cracking jokes at my expense.
I don't think that you are being harshly condemned. You seem to feel that sarcasm is the best way to address the issue. I do not. I hope that others give it more of a chance.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by ScumDog
You're using the word as an adjective, which the website explicitly said it shouldn't be. Use it as a noun, like you just did - Non-Brights. That's all they are.
Dawkins sometimes uses it as an adjective though...

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.

And here's what Dawkins says about non-Brights:
"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

"What would you suggest?"
He doesn't go further than that though. BTW, the opposite of "gay" isn't "non-gay", it's "straight". As far as I know, the site hasn't said anything about what the opposite of "Bright" is.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by copernicus
Thanks for the detailed reply, excreationist. You are among many who seem to have taken serious offense to the idea.
I'm just trying to point out that I think they made a bad choice as far as thinking up a new name goes. I'd like naturalism to be more popular and look more attractive - not to mirror theists preconceptions that we think we're know-it-alls. I guess the pro-Bright people have heard what I've got to say by now.

...e.g. that bright movement is really a compound word rather than a simple phrase containing an adjective modifier.
BTW, why didn't you make "Bright" uppercase? Things like "Christian", "American"(?), etc, are uppercase...

The idea is infeasible. There is no money for market research,
You don't need money!!!! It just involves setting up a webpage where people can come and suggest terms (and the origins of the terms if they are Greek or Latin, etc) and later people can register and vote.... people could do informal polls on Christian messageboards, etc, as well, since a major part of this is to look better in the eyes of Christians - but for naturalists to adopt the term, there should be some support of it too. For the voting maybe people could rate each term from 1 to 10 rather than just vote for their favourite term. That way you can pick the one with the widest approval rather than one that might be loved by a minority (and hated by others).

nor is the purpose to get consensus in the atheist community for the use of such a term.
But what about its popularity in theist circles? There should be a term that they don't think sounds stupid, arrogant or evil, etc.

...In a way, the very fact that we are having this discussion improves the chances of the survival of the term.
When will I learn... I guess I should just ignore it and hope people will forget about it...

It is a bit like trying to decrease the popularity of a book by attempting to censor it.
Mynga said the term may be changed in the future though. (Which I think is good)

I don't quite see how the term does you any more harm than the term "atheist" does.
In Australia, "atheist" generally means someone who doesn't believe that God/s exists. Maybe in the U.S. it means more than that. When referring to a person using the word "bright", there is usually a strong association with their (alledged) intelligence... even if there is a separating "a" and a capital B. ("I am a Bright") That's why so many people think of the intelligence-type associations when they hear about Brights.

Liberals, especially liberal politicians, very often object strenuously to being called "liberal".
I don't mind "liberal"... I usually use it to refer to liberal Christians... it is confusing to use it in Australian politics because one of the major parties is the Liberal party - and they might be more conservative than liberal. (Note really sure)

...I also wrote her and pointed out the uproar on II....
BTW, on their site, it says:
http://www.the-brights.net/bright_pic_4.htm
...Internet Infidels which runs the Secular Web (www.infidels.org), the largest and most popular Bright-related website in the world...

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Oresta
...."Gay" and, to some extent, "nigger" have been taken back by those groups from a bigoted majority who gave them these labels with pejorative intent....

According to Dawkins, "gay" was coined by some pro-homosexual people... though gays have taken back many anti-gay terms such as "queer". On the other hand, "gay" has turned into an insult as well (rather than be purely positive as Dawkins pretends it is) - I mean lots of young people like to use it to describe something or someone as being stupid. (e.g. "that's gay!")
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html
...A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults....

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by copernicus
It was a private email, and I now see how easily it can be misinterpreted, so I really should not have posted it. I did not contact her personally, but she responded to email comments that I sent to the web site host. I don't think that she expected to be quoted by me, nor do I think that you have correctly construed her remark. Fair enough. I've more than made my case on the subject anyway. However I think the fact that you submitted comments via the Brights website feedback mechanism makes her reply all the more fit for public consumption, as for all she knew she was responding to a hungry journalist.

In any case, it would be nice if we could discuss an issue with more substance than an attack on the character of the people who promote brightism. As you know I've contributed a fair share of substantial discourse on this subject. However my responses today were motivated by that e-mail you quoted, and pertained more to it than to the Brights movement. Which is to say that my criticisms of Mynga were about those particular comments, not about her promotion of brightism.

I perceived the remark as petty and unworthy of you. Petty and unworthy of me I'll humbly accept. But abuse? I still can't accept that characterization.

I don't know why you feel it necessary to refer to me as a "disciple". I have never met Mynga, as has Toto, but I don't understand why you think that it helps your cause to ridicule people. If you think that the "Bright" label is a bad idea, you can express that without all the name-calling and abuse.

I really don't understand why you persist in personal attacks of this sort. I understand why the attempt to float the name "Bright" is offensive to many in this forum, but I don't understand why you go to such lengths to smear those of us who have voiced support for the idea. It really isn't necessary. Geez, again with the abuse allegations. The disciple comment was a mostly playful jab. Let's say 70% playful, 30% jab. But not abuse. I have a lot of respect for your contributions to these discussions, if not for your conclusions. I assure you I did not intend to abuse you with my comments.

I don't think that you are being harshly condemned. You seem to feel that sarcasm is the best way to address the issue. I do not. I hope that others give it more of a chance. Again, I respect your opinion, but I really don't think there is an issue anymore. It's totally a gut feeling I have, but the popularity of the movement seems to have drastically waned. Hey, I'll be honest with ya. I could probably come up with a better word. I'm pretty slick like that. But without the star lineup the Brights wrangled themselves, I doubt I could make more than a few thousand people listen to my idea.

Oh well, if they're as open to changing the label as they claim to be, and if they ever define the political platform they mean to endorse, maybe I'll jump on the bandwagon then. In the meanwhile, I'll just go back to ignoring it.

vm

[copernicus]

Originally posted by excreationist
BTW, why didn't you make "Bright" uppercase? Things like "Christian", "American"(?), etc, are uppercase...
I'm not as concerned about the uppercase issue as those maintaining the web site are. However, I'll try to remember to put it in uppercase in the future.

But what about its popularity in theist circles? There should be a term that they don't think sounds stupid, arrogant or evil, etc.
I'm also not that concerned abut the popularity of the idea in theist circles. The idea is to promote the Bright movement, not to appease theist sensibilities. After all, there is nothing wrong with the word "atheist", but it has become too loaded down with negative stereotyping. I have no doubt that theists will react negatively to any name that nontheists call themselves by. The point of a new lable like "Bright" is to circumvent that negative stereotyping, at least temporarily. I would not be unhappy to see a new term replace "Bright", but I'll accept it for now.

Mynga said the term may be changed in the future though. (Which I think is good)
I agree with you on this. I have no particular attachment to "Bright", but it was the best label that they could come up with. I don't think that they are as committed to the label as most people here seem to think they are.

In Australia, "atheist" generally means someone who doesn't believe that God/s exists. Maybe in the U.S. it means more than that. When referring to a person using the word "bright", there is usually a strong association with their (alledged) intelligence... even if there is a separating "a" and a capital B. ("I am a Bright") That's why so many people think of the intelligence-type associations when they hear about Brights.
Look, religious folks are constantly proselytizing their various faiths. I don't think that the Bright movement is against prozelytizing naturalism. If we aren't going to say that there are advantages to being a Bright, then we might as well just sink back into the woodwork. From my perspective, Brightism is just common sense. It is an "illuminating" point of view, once you open your mind to it. That doesn't mean you have to go around claiming that supernaturalists are stupid, but you can certainly claim that supernaturalism lacks intellectual or rational justification. Newton had one of the most brilliant minds ever to have been produced by the human race, but he was absolutely bonkers on the subject of religion. Being smart is not synonymous with being rational. Brightism is about being realistic and rational. I have no problem with a controversial label. The point is that it should express a positive point of view, not just a rejection of other people's points of view.

BTW, on their site, it says: ...Internet Infidels which runs the Secular Web (www.infidels.org), the largest and most popular Bright-related website in the world...
Yes! Read the home page (http://www.infidels.org) and see if it doesn't express the Brightist philosphy. This web site is dedicated to metaphysical naturalism, not just atheism.
"Our goal is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of supernatural explanation and sufficient unto itself."

That is exactly what the Bright movement is all about.

P.S. Sorry to duck out like this, but I'm about to leave on a business trip for the rest of the week. I'll read responses to my post while on the road, but I may not be able to reply in a timely fashion. VM, I appreciate your comments, and I respect your feelings on the subject. Nevertheless, we have very different perceptions on the Bright movement and the people responsible for it. There is a chance that, if you ignore it, it will go away. If it doesn't go away, then no one will disrespect you for disassociating yourself from it.

[excreationist]

Originally posted by copernicus
...I'm also not that concerned abut the popularity of the idea in theist circles. The idea is to promote the Bright movement, not to appease theist sensibilities. After all, there is nothing wrong with the word "atheist", but it has become too loaded down with negative stereotyping....
Negative stereotyping from theists! And maybe some agnostics too.

I have no doubt that theists will react negatively to any name that nontheists call themselves by.
I agree... though in places like Dawkins' Guardian article, he thinks that won't happen - just like the word "gay" remained positive or neutral. (Which it didn't really though to some people it is more positive than "faggot")

The point of a new lable like "Bright" is to circumvent that negative stereotyping, at least temporarily.
Yeah, that is the theory behind it... but I think for many people, they'd be reminded of the intelligence-related aspect of "bright" and so see Brights as saying how intelligent they are. I guess on the other hand it isn't that much worse than Christians labelling themselves as "saved".

For the rest of your post I more or less agreed with it or couldn't think of much to say about it.

[dettus]

just wanna say that the term Brights is really really really bad. It implies that if you aren't a Bright then you must be a dimwit. Although I'd agree that atheists are brighter than theists, mocking the theists is only going to make us look bad.

I prefer the term atheist.

[ScumDog]

Well you could always browse this thread for arguments against and for it. ;)

[abe smith]

My Impression Izz that persons anxious to self-label "Brights" are probably the same sort of persons who are anxious to qualify for Mensa; in order to include it into their resumes.
I'd infer that we-here at EyeEye, strongly-self-approbative and damn-you-all, don't need that sort of external junk-stuff.... Ain' NOBODY whose good-opinion I value more than my own. Eh?

[EarlFlynn]

I'd never call myself a Bright, not when the perfectly useful terms atheist, infidel, nonbeliever, and secular humanist exist. To me, these words are rife with positive connotations, and I see no need for any euphemisms.

We are what we are. I see no need to sugar-coat or disguise what makes us different.

[99Percent]

I voted no. "Bright" is too demeaning, why not "Genius"?

[2human]

Thank you again. But as I have said before, as a naturalist I believe I have every right (nay, an obligation) to speak out against an attempt to rally all naturalists under a particular flag to the exclusion of everyone who disagrees with it.

Of course you're right about the advertising aspect, and if I was a shareholder of Coke when they came up with the New Coke idea, I would've been at every meeting with my hand in the air saying, "This is a STUPID idea! STOP IT!"

vm


So what to do now then?

the more we scream Stop it the more momentum it will get?

We have to find a better alternative if we dislike the word.
I find it insulting to me who are a dypical Dim persons.

I am certainly not bright.

so what about all these Meetups. Should we not support that all atheists show up and get to know each other. The written word fail to show the expressios of our face, all this hating could be solved if we saw the kindeness in the smile? am I too naive now?

I find the Meetup format a bit too formal. should we not find easier way to find like-minded people. Yahoo groups is a free way to do it.

Bernt Rostrom

[2human]

Clark Adams
. He is Public Relations Director for the Internet Infidels which runs the Secular Web (www.infidels.org), the largest and most popular Bright-related website in the world and one of the founders of the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org)


Is he using a nick name too. Has I read him without knowing it was him?

Does not all this anon stuf show how bad public realtion we have.

I name me 2human to tease too but I sign with my real name.

that soo uttrly few of you dare to do it show how badly we need respect so we could be open without risking our lives if we get out of the closet. .

Bernt Rostrom

[Oresta]

I certainly am not in the closet. I describe myself to anyone who asks as an Atheist. It's a precise description of who I am.
However, if I had to choose an alternate label, it would be "tract trasher" because that's what I do with the nasty, silly little things wherever I encounter them.

Oresta a.k.a. Barbara Bommarito
So there