The Others are Brights too!

[2human]

Now to make it all clear.

I like the initiative of Paul and Mynga and have nothing against them as persons. I was very skeptical to the name they proposed as an umbrella name or all of us who have a naturalistic worldview. We certainly need to get it known that in US there are some 27.000.000 who don't support faith in the supernatural as recent polls show.

I found the Brights confusing cause I see me as a rather dim and dull person and to say "I am a Bright" would be too obviously false so that people will laugh at me here in Sweden. Trust me! :)

But I got very suprised over the sour reaction and feedback from fellow atheists in this forum and in many others like it.

People seem to love to hate the name The Brights. What is all this hatred coming from? Must be the strong cruel oppression from the supernaturalists?

Anyway. People I like signed up for The Brights like Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and many more.

So I link to The Brights Movement from my site. I wish them all luck.
http://www.the-brights.net/

Some of us want an alternative name.

The Others Movement.

Such a name is not bragging and not confusing. We are The Others i nrelation to the thousands of years of oppression from faith based supernatural traditions. I certainly are one of The Others!

If you like this new name then try to spred it and if you don't like it, please write about your dislike of it and how bad as an alternative to The Brights it is all over the web. Make it all known. That way both The Brights and my alternative name will be spread.

How do we make use of The Others as a term then? If somebody get curious on my religion and ask me about my faith in a religion then I tell them.

"I am one of The Others! We don't have faith in any established religion. We have a naturalistic worldview. "

To say that "I am one of The Others" is not as arrogant as saying that we are The Brights or I am a Bright.

It is very human to care about The Others.

Read the Amsterdam Declaration of 2002.
http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm

"Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations."

quote from the first paragraph of it.

this inspired me to coin this new name.
So by caring for all humanity I see me as being one of The Others.

If the religonists have faith in a supernatural God then we are the Others having a naturalistic worldview.

As plain and simple as that.

I am one of The Others. Join us. We don't have a site. We spread this view though the net and in real life.

Bernt "One of The Others" Rostrom

[demoninho]

I agree with all the things they say. I just don't like the name the suggested, it sounds like a detergent abd doesn't translate well into other languages.

Maybe in time.....

[2human]

Thanks demoninho.

I don't know a word of your language but a few German words.

To translate The Brights to Swedish is very hard, almost impossible. It would be better to keep it as is. Lazy as we swedes are we often just take over all American words like Yo! or Diss or Whatever. Tape is one such word. Hip-Hop, Pop, Rock, Jazz, we don't make up our own words they sound ...

They sounds soo much better in English :)

but none of our 1200 members of the Humanists here has publically signed up as a Bright and that is suprising. I ahve not heard of any Norwegian Humanists doing it either. Now none of them would care about my The Others either but it sure is very easy to find a good swedish word for it "De Andra".
"Jag är en av de andra, vi är naturalister. But nobody here get what a Naturalist is cause they think of Naturism which is like nudism. Ok :)

Is it easy to find a translation in your language for The Others?

Does The Others sounds ok for you? Are you one of the Others too? Ich been Der ganz andere? Sorry my poor grammar. Does it sound crazy in your language maybe?

Bernt Der Ganz andere.

[demoninho]

The translation is easy but sort of taken already. I sort of get associations with gay of which we sometimes say he of the other side/ wrong side. It would be "de andere"(singular).

[The Other Michael]

Such a name is not bragging and not confusing. We are The Others i nrelation to the thousands of years of oppression from faith based supernatural traditions. I certainly are one of The Others!

Sorry, that name is already taken. :)

cheers,
Michael

[lpetrich]

Some have suggested the alternative "metan", short for "metaphysical naturalist". Any opinions?

[AspenMama]

Off to MD.

AspenMama, SL Moderator

[excreationist]

A couple weeks ago I started a thread for serious discussions on a replacement for Bright here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62978).

2human:
You said that people could say "I am one of The Others"... but what if they want to say "I'm a ....."? Would they say "I'm an Other?" And what if there was a census and you had to say your belief system (it would usually say things like Christian, Atheist, etc) would it have an option for "The Others"? (That sounds like your belief system/religion is a mixture of the other left-over ones)

[2human]

I will join excreationist in his efforts and stop reding here. If you too wnat an alternative go to the link he have above.

Bernt

[Bloop]

2human:

Har du sett några försök till översättning av Bright. Tycker inte att det verkar finnas någon vettig översättning:

Hej jag är en Lysande
Hej jag är en Skimrande
Hej jag är en Smartis
Hej jag är en Tunnbrödsrulle med Räksallad

Nej bort det!

Tycker inte om konceptet alls.

Bloop

[2human]

Hi Bloop,

No I fail to find a good translation too.

Bright is "lysande" but it sound kind of wrong to say it.

My suggestion is to keep it as is.

In Swedish we have taken over a lot of music and sport and buisness terms without translation. Sometimes we pronounce them and keep spelling or make a swedish spelling of it.

Take adhesive tape or tape in casett tape for a long long time it was band or tape then we spelled i tejp.

Bright then would be Bright for a long time and then change to
Brajt. We have Alliance changing to Allians so.

Maybe its a bit unpolite writing i nswedish here. No offence intended but very few write in any other lang here. Not even Latin despite US ahving such high percent and Canada frenchspeaking population. Wow your a frequent contributor to the II then.

Bernt the wannabe Swede but not living up to Viking standard. ;)

[Bloop]

Originally posted by 2human
Hi Bloop,

No I fail to find a good translation too.

Bright is "lysande" but it sound kind of wrong to say it.

My suggestion is to keep it as is.

In Swedish we have taken over a lot of music and sport and buisness terms without translation. Sometimes we pronounce them and keep spelling or make a swedish spelling of it.

Take adhesive tape or tape in casett tape for a long long time it was band or tape then we spelled i tejp.

Bright then would be Bright for a long time and then change to
Brajt. We have Alliance changing to Allians so.

Maybe its a bit unpolite writing i nswedish here. No offence intended but very few write in any other lang here. Not even Latin despite US ahving such high percent and Canada frenchspeaking population. Wow your a frequent contributor to the II then.

Bernt the wannabe Swede but not living up to Viking standard. ;)

Hey , we are a small nationa and a small language so influences from other languages are common. It used to be french with Gustav III. A lot of German words during the Hansa period IIRC and nowadays there is a huge stream of english words. Not much to do about it. This is one of the ways that languages evolves.

Brajt--- :D

Yes it is a bit impolite to write in swedish but you will perhaps vouch for me in that I did not talk smack about anyone not fluent in swedish ;)

[2human]

Do you know one Scandinaivan who endorse The Brights?
think of it, there are some 80.000 Norwegian members of Human-Etiska in Norway so it is kind of telling that none has supported The Brights in a way that has reach us.

Or is such things hidden by The Press / Media?

My latest crazy word to replace it is The Creds.

That word is apt is it not. We certainly need cred so why not be up front about it. We want cred most of all. We are The Creds.

A Cred is a person deserving cred due to having a naturalistic worldview.

How is that for a replacement of The Brights?

[reprise]

Originally posted by 2human
Do you know one Scandinaivan who endorse The Brights?
think of it, there are some 80.000 Norwegian members of Human-Etiska in Norway so it is kind of telling that none has supported The Brights in a way that has reach us.

Or is such things hidden by The Press / Media?

My latest crazy word to replace it is The Creds.

That word is apt is it not. We certainly need cred so why not be up front about it. We want cred most of all. We are The Creds.

A Cred is a person deserving cred due to having a naturalistic worldview.

How is that for a replacement of The Brights?

Sorry, but the first words which spring to mind at the mention of the term "creds" are credulous and creduloids - not credibility.

It's use in the phrase "street cred" also puts it in the "try hard" class. It sounds too much like people are looking for a "cool" term rather than an accurate one.

I think people really need to come to grips with the fact that many people within the "naturalist movement" don't want an umbrella term but wish to be identified by the separate descriptive terms which apply to the different types of naturalistic beliefs. We already deal with the misconception that all atheists have the same metaphysical beliefs. Many of us don't want to go down that same road with some new, contrived term and have to explain that our beliefs are not the same as those of (insert name of this week's posterboy for the naturalist movement).

[2human]

But would it not have been apt to have made that clear to Paul and Mynga b4 they made this unfortuante move.

Does it not show that what we lack is cred! If we had a decent attitude to co-ordinate our efforts then these kinds of mistakes would not be made.

Ok let suppose your right. I want to see the world as it is.

The majority of naturalists don't want to have an umbrella name cause that which is true to us is that we are a diverse group.

Non-lables will be our nickname in the Media then. They will give us a label so its better we get over this hate of labels and choose one we could stomach.

Ok Creds is bad.

What about The Apts.

We adapt to the circumstances, we are quick to learn and are
well adapted, we have a natural ability to get it. Right!

Why not use The Apts.

It is compatible with our fondness of evolution too.

2human

[livius drusus]

I think this thread also is better suited to the CSS&SA forum.

[2human]

Hey I am new here what on earth is CSS&SA , I am dim remember :) CSS&SA must be short for something. On this forum, but how to find it I drown in all suggested forums here.

2human

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by 2human
Hey I am new here what on earth is CSS&SA , I am dim remember :) CSS&SA must be short for something. On this forum, but how to find it I drown in all suggested forums here.

2human

Oh, pardon me. CSS&SA stands for Church State Separation & Secular Activism. The issue of an umbrella term has been discussed often in this forum as a matter of secular activism.

CSS&SA is the 10th forum listed on the main page. You can also follow the redirect link I left behind in Miscellaneous Discussions, which I think may be how you got here to make the post above.

Welcome to IIDB, btw. Sorry for having confused you.

[2human]

Oups I sure live up to being Dim :)

your the kind moderator moving me to a more proper environ Ok!

What do you think of The Apts then?

apart from me, we sure are The Apts? :)

[Bloop]

2human: What do you call yourself if anyone ever asks about your personal belief system ? I've always used atheist and sometimes more jokingly infidel ("otrogen" i betydelsen icke-kristen).

Not that religion ever comes up much around these parts.

Bloop

[2human]

If anyone ever ask, your right, nobody ever ask. It is seen as unpolite to ask. what I would answer is not easy to know in advance.

I got very surprised some weeks ago, a new neigbour who is a pentecostal (pingstvän)got surprised over my view on Jesus and really did ask me about my worldview.

I am a naturalist that feels very religious but I interpret my "religiosity" to be a part of my humanistic views. She got very surprised too. I have no faith in the supernatural but if every society has had some relation to extra-ordinary things then it will be with us for thousands of years more so we are in for a long fight, it is better that we learn now than to be very sorry later.

Naturalists don't feel religious. But I do. It is only a feeling, not a faith. To me its how I am. Has nothing to do with if the feelings are true or not. so the word religious is confusing so I need a better word than Brights. I am soo Dim that it is Roll on the floor laughing if I present me as Bright. But I sure am a Naturalist.

I feel a lot in relation to music too but I don't make extraordinary claims about music either to have the capacity to describe reality. Music has value as feelings. What if the religious folks make a kind of subconsious dealing and choose what feels ok like Martin Gardner who reman a Fideist despite him being one of our most known Skeptic. He believes cause it feels good to him.

Yes it feels good for me too but I find it very non-ethical or unethical to keep such a faith.

What about The Apts then. Is that one easy to translate?
De Lämpliga sounds crazy indeed, I am not good at this.

Your turn now

[Graeme]

how about 'Atheists'?

Seems a bit more descriptive....

[2human]

Hope it is ok if I tease you a bit. your even brighter than me! :)

Seriously man!!! What about the agnostics, read through all text on http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/agnostic.html

Bill Schultz: The Essence Of Agnosticism.

He had a site but I don't remember the url now. Help me find it?

He wrote rather negative about the hubris of Atheists who denied God.

He is a naturalist too I guess so he don't want to use Atheist.

He is active in this forum as a moderator? or as staff so we could ask him to confirm if he see himself as Atheists.

If he accept the Brights I have been too lazy to find out. Bill if you read this then I love to read your take on The Brights!

So even if you and me always tell every body that we are atheistic in relation to supernatrual gods we can't demand agnostics to see themselves as atheists.

You are bright are you? :) Only teasing.

What about freethinkers or Rationalists or humanists why force them to say atheist. I am a humanistic naturalist but don't demand others to see them as that.

But if all of us who are not supernaturalists will be known as something to be reckon with then we need a term that is neutral to all variety within naturalism so all of us could use it and still keep to our own pet identity. ok? sorry teasing you. I am a bit dim here :)

[butswana]

Yeah, I'll stick with atheist too.
Got some news for ya, folks.
If you think thier religion is bullshit, they are NEVER going to like you.
Doesn't matter what you call yourself.

[2human]

Why Atheists don't work as an umbrella for agnostics!

"Any word that is to act as an umbrella for people who have a rather wide range of beliefs (all naturalistic) cannot be a term, however weighty, already in use to describe a category of those people."

This the official answer from The Brights.

I am bright enough to get it and are surprised that soo many active here goes on as if this is not a valid arguement.

No agnostics want to be seen as xian bashing aggressive atheists.

I've been one myself. I bashed xians to my hearts delight during my youth. From 20 to 40 years old. I am still atheistic re supernatural claims but my aggressive style didn't work.

Very few got deconverted. My atheistic aggressiveness alienated more potential atheists than it got them to embrace it.

So "All the others are bright too" is my way of trying to get us cred. We ahve to realize that it is not their lack of inelligence that make them go on believing in supernatural things. They are caught within a way of seeing. It is supported by our body's defence mechanism for emotional survival and besides. If some 80 per cent around you profess some belief in a God then it is even "pragmatically rational" to go along. That is pure suvival and has very little to do with what is metaphysically likely to be true.

th ogod out there in the supernatural realm is most likely a social construction by us humans but the God within us is more likely a kind of biproduct of our biological need to be on good terms with the people we are dependent on to survive. They used to kill us, don't you remember. Such very practical considerations get taken by our body without us consciously being aware of it.

Neuroscience confirm that there is not way of reachig these parts of us cause they have no verbal output. We could "intuitivily" sense how we feel but it is not realible at all. Ask somebody who has been a true believer of Jesus if they saw this as just an idea they could drop next minute if they heard our arguements. Yes a few of them really did this but not the next minute. they had heard them for years after years and not been able to take them in. That is why we see it as a blind faith. This is no different from those who beleive in Cryonic life after death. No arguemnt from us will make them see how futile it is to fridge themselves to eternal life.

Now I like Paul and Mynga's initiative. I certainly need an umbrella name. I am a humanistic naturalist but this get Huh?
if I present me as that. So a worldwide recognised word would make life much easier for me.

The word Bright sounds silly even in Swedish, my native language but Green for Environmental awarenes sounds silly too but not arrogant.

But don't see how the word they choosed could make it worldwide. Apart from it being too arrogant. Maybe it is good that it is arrogant. That would be true to many of us. But it is unfair to all who have a natrualsitic worldview and are not arrogant.

In swedish it is impossible to translate Bright. Ljus or Lysande which is one of the possible words gives the wrong connotation.
De Ljusa or De Lysande sounds like we are blondes or smart and clever and like Mensa people. Like SuperBrights or something.

It says that: "I am the light of this world." Very bragging. Or it says I am blond lightskinned which is to be race specific. Not politically correct at all. Blank means like to glitter or look like a robot of crome. Skinande is shining like the bright sky. Sound like if we are aliens from outer space having a radiating skin. Klar is too close to clear which is already taken by a group we don't support. all the other translation alternatives do not promising either.

So Bright is not a good choice for us. Atheist is not an umbrella term for agnostics. Why is that soo hard to get? :)

Naturalist would be but not even academics get it as a naturalistic worldview. As Paul and Mynga point out.

The word has to be neutral to be able to include all other naturalistic worldviews. It should no be a competing worldview witing the whole.

2human

[Tony]

Why people have problem with "Knowledgers"?

I think we have to use a name that will show the main difference between us and theists.

What is the main difference between theists and atheists?

Many people think that the difference is: theists believe in supernatural, atheists - don't.

So, it looks like it is a matter of choice: some people believe; some don't. It gives theists "good" argument that atheists just made wrong choice.

Atheists are not simply anti-theistic. Our opinion is based on knowledge, not on fantasies or fears.

The main difference between theists and atheists is the way they think.

Theists have to believe first to see the "gods". Theists may not question anything they want. They may not think free. If they see a conflict between religion and real life, they chose to believe some old books and liars than their own eyes.

Atheists can question anything. We know facts, we don't believe in fantasies. It means - atheists KNOW, not BELIEVE.

As much as I like the word "atheist" traditionally, I think it's not correct for us. “Atheism” is only part of wider meaning “Knowledgerism”.

We don't believe in religion not because it's our choice. We can't believe in lies if we want to be honest to ourselves.

I think that we have to SHOW the MAIN difference between us and theists - THE WAY WE THINK.

So, let's call ourselves "Knowledgers". It is not confusing, not pretentious. It's straight to the point. It does not mean that we know everything. It just means that we don't make up comfortable answers.

We KNOW the facts of science, logic and psychology. If we don't know something yet - we don't replace real answers with fantasies just to feel good about ourselves. We say: "We don't know yet".

Theists always have answers. They are afraid to live without answers. They don’t care if they have wrong answers. They must feel comfortable. (“They can’t handle the truth!”)

I admit that at first (when I was a little boy) I felt uncomfortable with unknown:

How come we don't know how universe was created? What will happen to me after I die?

I love myself. I can't let myself just disappear in thin air. I am afraid of death. I don't want to die. I want to live forever!!!

Well, I was brave enough to be honest to myself. As many atheists were and are.

Yes, we don't know yet how stars were born first time. Yes, we will die and we don't know what will happen to us after death.

We live in harmony with nature, science and logic. We have no conflicts with the real life because we take it as it is - real.

Take life “as is”. If you don’t like it – try to modify it to make it better for you and others.

Theists BELIEVE in gods, because don't know the facts of science, logic and psychology. Or, they know, but they were brainwashed by religion so hard, that they can't think straight. Or, they are simply afraid of unknown.

Hooray to people who are brave enough to be honest!

Go Knowledgers, go!

Cheers.

P.S.

How “Knowledger” sounds in Swedish?

By the way, we don’t have to translate “Knowledger”. We don’t translate “theist”, so why we have to translate “Knowledger”?

P.P.S

Unfortunately, we can’t use Gnostic because of:

Main Entry: gnos•ti•cism
Pronunciation: 'näs-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1664
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gnosticism

But we can use “Knowledger”.

[2human]

Tny I agree with almost all of what you write.

"Atheists can question anything. We know facts, we don't believe in fantasies. It means - atheists KNOW, not BELIEVE.

As much as I like the word "atheist" traditionally, I think it's not correct for us. “Atheism” is only part of wider meaning “Knowledgerism”.

We don't believe in religion not because it's our choice. We can't believe in lies if we want to be honest to ourselves.
"
Yes that is my take on it too. We don't want to go into a self-deception of blind faith. But is "Knowledgers"? the word that wil say this?

I guess that a lot of empirists would agree with your reasoning but they would prefer Empirists.

The method or practice of an empiric; pursuit of knowledge
by observation and experiment.

Metaph.) The philosophical theory which attributes the
origin of all our knowledge to experience.

Or are you too a Realist?

[n] a philosopher who believes that universals are real and exist independently of anyone thinking of them

or maybe like Paul and Patricia Churchland. I find their
scientific realism

PHIL363 Lecture 15 Churchlands notes
... In Paul Churchland's Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind (1979), he
argued that we can teach ourselves to observe the world more objectively ...
www.phil.mq.edu.au/staff/jsutton/PHIL363lecture15.html

It had a geat impact on me. around 1980. Now I don't know anymore :) But I don't support the supernatural.

Tony don't feel put down if i don't support your Knowledgers.

I came up with a very similar name too. Knowers.
I guess richard Dakins or Daniel Dennett has commented on this theme. One of the used the term Know-all and Know-nothings if i remember. The sicentific method is a way of finding knowledge so to reefer to us as Knowledgers seem to point to the reuslt instead of teh method. If the word Scientism had not the very bad political non-correctness about it, it would be rather good.

To be a Knowledger is to see merit in the Sci-method.

I guess that your on the right track and that I am not bright enough to sort out why that word is less attractive. Maybe it is better than al lwords I have proposed here but to people like exchristian and logical people like him the knowledgers wont work. The prefer words like Metan or Menat. Which is totally out of question for people like me. Maybe your a Menat too :)

2human

Tow the others reading thsi thread. I say that The Others seem to be bright too. We need a word that include all who are not fundamentalsits if I get it. The fundies adn Evangelists are most often literalists who take the reaealed text as The Truth.

It is true because God revealed it and God have no fault in himself ...

We see all this as a social construction. It is an interpretation within a religious tradition. But such is the case for doctrinal Marxists too. They also do interpretations within a tradition.

Science are not like that. When the evidence point out that the science get it wrong they redraw their map. Science is approxiamte answers but some answers are more tue than others. It could taketime but when the Big voices die then their less good explanations die out with them. Not so in soft science and dogmatic religion or political or therapeuptic ideology. Freud and Jung is still taught as if viable today when we have better answers from neuroscience.

Soo the word we search for should exlude this clinging to normative faith in the authoritarian answers.

If you belong to those who still think that Atheists could be functional as an umbrella name.

Have you visit The Brights site and read through what an umrella is good for. Ok revealed wordy rain from the Fundies. But an umbrella let Atheists and Agnostics to refer to not only them but to Rationalists, Freethinkers, Infidels, Heretics, Humanists, ...

To lobby for our joint cause we need a name like The Greens this and that. Media refer to a very diverse group by writing The Greens. You could be a Gaia worshiper Wicca or a secular environmentalist. What si common to you are the concern for the erath and quality of future life. That gives the Greens political power. Had they remaind as the diverse individual voices they would not be able to refer to. Media would get numerous complain that they leave out us secular environ aware people if they would write Earth Spiritual movement or similar.

2 human

[2human]

thinking this through since I first heard of The Brights support my take on The Others as a better choice. Ok in some countries the Gays are also named the others. But that is a minor thing. If one read the IHEU Amsterdam Declaration it is clear as sky that what is important for you and me is all humans now and future generations. We should care about the others. All the Others.

To point this out up front could be the positive break through for us as a diversity of interpretations of our naturalistic worldview.

To care about others is not selfish and to be selfish and selfcentered is the bad reputation we have. By choosing a name that counter that and then to live up to it in practise meeting The Others regularily ones a month or fortnioght or weekly will place us as good citizens. Our isloation is selfmade. My being Naysayers we confirm the negative press we have. To say yes to the Others without compromising with our naturalistic worldview will make the needed change. So let us do it!

We are The Others and care about all humans and animals and all that is alive and about the environ too.

2human to not be one of The Others