Who find Bright ok to use?

[BerntRostrom]

I have signed up as a Bright but I am very skeptical to the name after getting so much negative reactions here. I've tried to tell the Brights that as I remember one out of ten was negative here.

Could you help me find as many as possible who are positive to Bright as the best term for the purpose that Brights describe on their site?

I want to learn from those who are frequent user of this Forum.

Much appreciated hope to get considered feedback from you

Happy new year

Atheist since 1964 and proud of it but also having a worldview that is naturalistic and thus a signed up Bright.

Bernt

[openeyes]

As you've noticed, "Bright" in not a popular term on this board and one that's been discussed ad nauseam.

Nonetheless, it's a term I'd use in certain circumstances to describe myself.

[BerntRostrom]

Yeas I have too but are skeptical on continuening if it get such a bad rap as here. Hope things improve. When People get used to it.

some say it is arrogant and some that it is lame and some silly.

could it really be so construsting , maybe it is a good compromise.

If it get both reactions from the outmost stringent persons who find it lame and from those who find it arrogant due to them sensitive for the language connotations.

Now do we ahve any chance on understanding if it is 10 % against it ormaybe 50% agaisnt it or as many as 90% against it.

Suppose it is 90%, is not those active in II a kind of selected elite and not ordinary atheist from ones neighbourhood?

those who are active here are the cream de la cream of the atheists.

So maybe they feel not being asked adn react to them been a receiving end instead of beign up front them finding the name out of inner motivations.

ok want more kind feedback from others who are able to use it.

[Viti]

Unfortunately, the search function is currently inoperable. Perhaps someone has links to all of the Brights discussions including the Poll.

I found a link to the original discussion here

Original Brights discussion (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722&perpage=25&pagenumber=3 )




.Suppose it is 90%, is not those active in II a kind of selected elite and not ordinary atheist from ones neighbourhood? II is the largest gathering of atheists anywhere. We are not exclusive or elite.

Here are my formal objections and personal opinions in regards to the term Bright

1. The word itself: Bright is non-descriptive, so must be defined using the same words they are trying to encompass {or obscure, IMO}. "What is a Bright" cannot be answered without using the words naturalist or non theist or disbelief in gods or what have you, so why add an extra layer of obfuscation?

Also, it is creepily similar the the adjective-made-noun Clear, used by Scientologists. "I am a Clear" uttered by a celebrity Scientologist is not all that different than "I am a Bright" uttered by a celebrity freethinker.

2. Paul and Mynga chose to create a movement, solicit celebrity endorsement, and book speaking engagements without ever discussing the idea with any organization of the people they claim to speak for. They went about it like an advertising campaign for some new product, rather than starting a grassroots usage of the word to create a true meme (most "movements" are grassroots). Somebody is making money here, which also is too close to Scientology for comfort.

3. The website constantly analogizes to the word "gay" for homosexuals which is demonstrably a false analogy. "Gay" was a derogatory term that homosexuals chose to embrace much like blacks have begun using "nigger". A couple of homosexuals did not get together and say "Oh, I know, people will hate us less if we call ourselves "Gay". Go find some celebrity queers and lets start a movement".

Our language evolves and euphamisms are not created by committee. Once again, somebody is trying to sell us something

4. The Brights website once read "We are forming an Internet constituency of Brights for social and political action.". When someone from the Internet Infidels emailed Mynga since nobody had ever come to the IIDB to discuss the idea, and it is the largest single gathering of atheists online or off! I did an informal poll there, and out of 200 votes, only 22 were in support of the umbrella term "Bright"

Her reply stated that we were militant, and rebellious and the Brights did not want to associate with our type. After that the sentence above read "We are forming a national constituency of Brights for social and political action.". Now it simply reads "We are forming a constituency of Brights for social and political action.". Why the change? Maybe because she outraged and insulted the largest constituency known of the people she hoped to speak for?

Mynga refuses an online debate or discussion of this, stating lack of time, yet has plenty of time to travel the country giving the presentation knowing that she will not have to defend herself in that format. You know whose favorite tactic that is? Kent Hovind, the creationist known as Dr. Dino ( http://www.drdino.com )

fix URL

[Toto]

Two more old threads:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64040

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62807

I have to admit that I don't like the term, but I don't feel the depth of opposition to it that others here show. If I thought that Mynga and Paul were actually turning The Brights into a clone of $cientology, I might be more upset. But I still think the best strategy is to see if the name or the organization sticks. Evidently the idea is popular with a lot of people, even people who would prefer a different name.

[Kevbo]

It's just such a goofy/creepy-sounding word. The bottom line is that I'd be embarrassed to use it to describe myself, and I feel that it would invite plenty of ridicule on an otherwise down-to-earth worldview.

[greenbear]

Non-descriptive, creepy/goofy, connations of scientology's "clear", certainly. It also sounds like a word that would be a better fit in the sixties.

[Anti-Creedance Front]

Very opposed to the term bright. Hands down.

[BerntRostrom]

but don't get me wrong. I am one hundred percent behind the goals of what they try to accomplish.

In what way would they get money?

I thought it cost a lot of money to have it going?

Intitute of Humanist Studies Rob Greene would not sponsor it if it had anything not proper about it.

What if the name is set up to be embarrassing.

I am no expert on memetics and to me it still is a prot-science not a pseudo-science as some seem to say.

We don't know yet if there exists memes within us but from Scan of London Taxi drivers it is clear that memories of how to drive to a certain address actualy do take up place in our heads.

It is all very physical. Our failure to use Bright as a noun could be such physical reaction. We who fails has a stronger inhibition weighting on what is ok to do. We actually feel in our body the grammar resistence. Those who are indiferent or apathic to the word has no such feelings like we have. If they did tehy would bark loud like we do.

We are all different in levels of acceptance.

Could not this be planned? Or ir could be sub-consiously motivated too. the auto-pilot of our body is a kind of survival program so it had a level we was not used to in Paul and Mynga. They are used to each other while we ar not. We reacted while those who concentrate on the goals of the Brights could weight the balance differently. The name is ok if one give priority to the goals they say.

It is not my fave but the more I use it the more I feel it to be ok.

I fail to use it aong my family or neighbour or to peopel I meet in this smal religious town here at UpNorth Sweden.

This region has soo few atheists that none was avtive among the 1200 memebers of our sole freethought org teh Humanists.

100 kilometers further north there is one active. 130 kilomters south another. Me not owning a car it is too far away to go by bike.

none o them use computer or phone to keep contact either so it is very lonely here as an activistic atheist. Ok at 60 I ahve cooled down but I am an insecure guy so I need griends who are ateists so I have somebody to axchange views with.

This whole trench war between fractions of teh Freethought community is not helping at all so the Umbrella aspect of Brights is most welcome.

That should unite us instead of escelating the war.

Every time I take this up at the Brights they say that we who are not satisfied with the name has not given a good alternative.

But any word almost is a better alternative to me.

Freethinker

Secularist

Skeptic

Naturalist

I see problem with all of them but they are not embarrassing so this fact tells me it was chosen to be embarrassing for a purpose or Paul was kind of grammatically very different from my body's sense of how words is supposed to feel.

Two words new to me was Apathist or Apatheists and Nones.

These don't get any negative reactions from those who are supposed to be categorised by teh sociologiists using them?

My sister is a typical Apatheist neither me nor she ahd not name for it. She always answer "I don't care about such worries if God exists or not" the important thing is that people you care about don't force words upon each other to her. But most of the time she just don't care. It is not interestign to her while i've been very interested sicne me being 10 years old. I find it very odd that religion exists at all.

The Greeks understood that it was al lmade up by us so why didn't it catch on this first enlighenment? This first Modernistic insight?

Democritos and Lucretius and such thinkers.


Could it not be our need for feeling good.

Take the most famous debunker apart from James Randi.

Martin Gardner has for almost all his life debunked superstitious fads in Scientific American and he is one of the Founders of CSICOP and he still is an Fideist. He is religious cause it feels good he told Carl Sagan who could not understand that attitude and neither could I. Gardner loosed me there. I fai lto support that view.

A kind of Deism if i get it. Take another famous debunker of superstition, Edward O Wilson who explain religion via biological hardwiring. He endorse the Deist project as do Steven Pinker.

Is it not logical that this has to do with feelings. Antonio Damamsio says that feelings is more imåportantto us than what we would like to admit. The very agressiveness in our debunking is the emotions at work motivating us. We are by our acions confirming this view.

These are my fave authors apart from Rich Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and others.

[Toto]

I think that the reason the term is not popular here, is that "Bright" refers to a weak atheist who is not comfortable with the word "atheist." The term "agnostic" would be a good description for these Brights (tm), but it has been so abused that most people are not really clear on what it means.

Most people on this forum, however, are comfortable calling themselves atheists, and seem to have little sympathy for people who are afraid of the term.

[BerntRostrom]

Toto, I am not expert on english at all. It is not my native language.

some words amaze me still. Take this word lame. Brights are not lame they are more bragging from my sens of English. That is not to be afraid. I've alwaysed stod up for us Atheists and I've been very proud of being one until a "Pure" Atheists told me that I've been fooling myself since 1953. He told me around 200 or so that Bern didn't even get what it is to be an atheist a Real Atheist.

His rhetoric strategy was so good that I lost my proud identity.

I newver got it back. I am technically stil la one hundred percent atheist but his disapproval of me got me soo unsure of what it is to be one that I lost inner ctext and self-esteem.

Why use a word that is soo demanding that me being proud of seeing me as one and famous here for being one fo the most aggressive one had got it wrong since 1953? It is beyond my intelectual capacity.

Take thsi very sophisticated reasonign from George Smith, Paul Kurtz and Michael Martin. Weak atheism being a lack of faith cosntrasted with having a faith that God does not exist.

such philosophical sophistery is beyond us ordinary persons and that si why I see the umbrella conept as a long wanted but neglected approach.

That is why I one hundred pecent suppor the goals of Brights but am very skeptical about the name. It is to oembarrassing for me to use. Everybody here see me as a typical Dim so I am no Bright.

Hey Bernt you forgot the a Bright but so does everybody else and words mean what ordinary people ascribe them to mean practically. The dictionary is an indicator of how it was used a long time ago.

Some words in use now is not even mention in my Dictionarys.

American Heritage from 1981 hasn't apatheists but says this about

apathy Lack of feeling or interest in things generally found exciting, interesting, or moving, indifference. Greek apatheia without feeling a - without pathos - feeling.

That says it bettr than weak atheism seen fro mmy homegrown sense of english.

Many people who we atheists did accounted to be among us more accurately should have the category apatheists cause they have no feeling for if God exists or not. I am an atheist in the sense that I feel strongly and have strong faith in that there is no supernatural god but I am no apatheist cause I feel as strongly that God exists as a social construct within our heads even in our atheistic heads.

Vincent Sarich writes like this (and he is an atheist too)


"Gods that live only in people's heads are far more powerful than those that live 'somewhere out there' for the simple reason that there aren't any of the latter variety and the ones in our heads actually affect our lives and, of course, the lives of those we interact with and everything else we touch. " and continues

"I believe that gods exist to the extent that people believe in them. I believe that we created gods, not the other way around. But that doesn't make God any less "real". Indeed, it makes God all the more powerful.

Michael Shermer in personal correspondence with Sarich 1997 related to in shermer's book "How we believe." (from page 11. )

[Howard]

Okay, I’ll say it… we’re mostly aBrights here.

But don’t even get me started on the differences between the strong aBrights and the weak aBrights.

[arcangle]

Originally posted by Toto
I think that the reason the term is not popular here, is that "Bright" refers to a weak atheist who is not comfortable with the word "atheist." The term "agnostic" would be a good description for these Brights (tm), but it has been so abused that most people are not really clear on what it means.

Most people on this forum, however, are comfortable calling themselves atheists, and seem to have little sympathy for people who are afraid of the term.

Umm...

No.

I am an atheist. Actually, I consider myself a "weak" atheist in that I lack belief, not that I lack the gumption to back up my philisophical position. I am fully comfortable with the label atheist, and I'm even comfortable with the label "weak" atheist.

However, I am also a Bright.

And I've become comfortable with that label as well. Probably because I do not allow others to define labels for me. I tend to prefer to do that for myself.


Lyn

[BerntRostrom]

I've become comfortable with that label as well. Probably because I do not allow others to define labels for me. I tend to prefer to do that for myself. Lyn

Then you are like most of us atheists here. We all like to do the labeling of ourselves.

When the Brights did it for us then almost all barked up their tree.

I am all for the concept of an umbrella. In that you and I are very alike. We like the goals and the concept of an umbrella for all of us with a naturalistic worldview.

That is not true of others here at Infidels. Some are not fave of any umbrellas. That surprised me mightly. How do you get recognised if your not able to show that you are many who cooperate to defend your rights together? That is how one get credibility. To show one is credible.

I see The Brights as a long awaited possibility to make ourselves known. To make our voice heard. But if the name hinder us to be heard or if the chosen name make us look ridiculous then we have to change the name ASAP.

Isn't that very logical. If the name is that which gets in our way then we better change it real fast.

It is too late to change the name now, some say. The boat has already left its harbor. The Train has left the Station. Are you onbodrd or are you out on the sea alone Bernt?

That is an argument I don't buy. The longer it takes for us to change the name the less credit we will have left. The sooner we are able to change it the more cred we will stil have. That is logical to me.

They made a poll here at II forums.

Only ten percent liked the name. 75% was against it.

Now there are many possibilities on how to get that result.

This forum is Internet Infidels. That is a very selected part of all of humanity. The outspoken atheist activists and loud proclaimers of those that have decided on who they are.

Nobody are going to tell me who I am. I am an Atheist and you don't rename me to be a Bright cause I am the one doing the labeling of myself. "Do you read me loud and clear!" type.

I've been like that myseld, very aggressive in my atheistic outreach.

I'm still too aggressive as an atheist. some tell me that I am not likeable or likable to them (if that spelling is more correct :)

To get any cred, we need to be more likable, do we not?

If none find us likable, why would they give us our rights?

Cause like them we are humans. We all belong to humanity.

But if we behave like the non-likables? Why give us rights then?

If we who are Atheists behaved so others found us likable then we would get supporters from many who have worldviews not like ours but who like us agreed to be likeable. Is that not logical and reasonable and rational and practical and true???

The logic I try to express here is named reciprocal altruism. A This for That worldview. A way of life that is built on fairness.

Maybe we need to show that we are like all of humanity. We only get our rights if others are able to see themselves as us?

I am like you. I am a human too. Humans are very diverse.

If I give you the right to express your way of being diverse then I expect you to allow me the right to express my way of life too.

that is why I ahve signed up as a Bright but I try to be realistic about the name. If 75% are agaisnt it, why continue somethign that failed unless these 75% are a tiny minority who selfselected themselves as the Infidels of humanity? Maybe The Brights are a much bigger part of humanity so the resistence are more due to the selimage of the Infidels here? How do we know. Guessing takes us nowhere.

We need real sicence research but lack the money. If all of us join the Brights then we get mondy cause the nwe get credibility and if credible they give us our rights.

We need hard facts not more of opinion here.

I don't trust polls and surveys cause all of them are based on self-reporting. The questions lure persons to say yes to things taht is not a true description of their worldview.

Latest poll had no religion affiliation as high as 13% but the estimated percent of these are 50% of them are spiritual in the supernatural sense. So although they are not affiliated with any of the many known trad religions they still do not share our naturalistic worldview. So at most if the self-reporting is accurate then maybe 8% are potential Brigths but only 1% are organised Freethoughters.

So that is eight times or maybe many times more than who ever get organised in Atheists, Humanists, Freethinkers, Secularists or any other label we usually choose.

So Brights has a real opportunity to make themselves knows as those who include even those who are not activists.

Apatheists are a very big part of those who have a naturalistic worldview. Here in Sweden they maybe are some 30%.

It al ldepend on how you set up the self-reporting. The researchers are now biased by the culture they grew up within. The way they set the poll up taint the result. The way the questions get perceived tain the result. If one had the money to actually "record" the behavior of al lpeopel one maybe would get very different result.

We need real Mappers of actual worldview behavior. Hard science and not the socially constructivist variety.

[arcangle]

Originally posted by BerntRostrom
Lyn

Then you are like most of us atheists here. We all like to do the labeling of ourselves.

When the Brights did it for us then almost all barked up their tree.

I am all for the concept of an umbrella. In that you and I are very alike. We like the goals and the concept of an umbrella for all of us with a naturalistic worldview.

That is not true of others here at Infidels. Some are not fave of any umbrellas. That surprised me mightly. How do you get recognised if your not able to show that you are many who cooperate to defend your rights together? That is how one get credibility. To show one is credible.

I see The Brights as a long awaited possibility to make ourselves known. To make our voice heard. But if the name hinder us to be heard or if the chosen name make us look ridiculous then we have to change the name ASAP.

Isn't that very logical. If the name is that which gets in our way then we better change it real fast.

It is too late to change the name now, some say. The boat has already left its harbor. The Train has left the Station. Are you onbodrd or are you out on the sea alone Bernt?

That is an argument I don't buy. The longer it takes for us to change the name the less credit we will have left. The sooner we are able to change it the more cred we will stil have. That is logical to me.

They made a poll here at II forums.

Only ten percent liked the name. 75% was against it.

Now there are many possibilities on how to get that result.

This forum is Internet Infidels. That is a very selected part of all of humanity. The outspoken atheist activists and loud proclaimers of those that have decided on who they are.

Nobody are going to tell me who I am. I am an Atheist and you don't rename me to be a Bright cause I am the one doing the labeling of myself. "Do you read me loud and clear!" type.

I've been like that myseld, very aggressive in my atheistic outreach.

I'm still too aggressive as an atheist. some tell me that I am not likeable or likable to them (if that spelling is more correct :)

To get any cred, we need to be more likable, do we not?

If none find us likable, why would they give us our rights?

Cause like them we are humans. We all belong to humanity.

But if we behave like the non-likables? Why give us rights then?

If we who are Atheists behaved so others found us likable then we would get supporters from many who have worldviews not like ours but who like us agreed to be likeable. Is that not logical and reasonable and rational and practical and true???

The logic I try to express here is named reciprocal altruism. A This for That worldview. A way of life that is built on fairness.

Maybe we need to show that we are like all of humanity. We only get our rights if others are able to see themselves as us?

I am like you. I am a human too. Humans are very diverse.

If I give you the right to express your way of being diverse then I expect you to allow me the right to express my way of life too.

that is why I ahve signed up as a Bright but I try to be realistic about the name. If 75% are agaisnt it, why continue somethign that failed unless these 75% are a tiny minority who selfselected themselves as the Infidels of humanity? Maybe The Brights are a much bigger part of humanity so the resistence are more due to the selimage of the Infidels here? How do we know. Guessing takes us nowhere.

We need real sicence research but lack the money. If all of us join the Brights then we get mondy cause the nwe get credibility and if credible they give us our rights.

We need hard facts not more of opinion here.

I don't trust polls and surveys cause all of them are based on self-reporting. The questions lure persons to say yes to things taht is not a true description of their worldview.

Latest poll had no religion affiliation as high as 13% but the estimated percent of these are 50% of them are spiritual in the supernatural sense. So although they are not affiliated with any of the many known trad religions they still do not share our naturalistic worldview. So at most if the self-reporting is accurate then maybe 8% are potential Brigths but only 1% are organised Freethoughters.

So that is eight times or maybe many times more than who ever get organised in Atheists, Humanists, Freethinkers, Secularists or any other label we usually choose.

So Brights has a real opportunity to make themselves knows as those who include even those who are not activists.

Apatheists are a very big part of those who have a naturalistic worldview. Here in Sweden they maybe are some 30%.

It al ldepend on how you set up the self-reporting. The researchers are now biased by the culture they grew up within. The way they set the poll up taint the result. The way the questions get perceived tain the result. If one had the money to actually "record" the behavior of al lpeopel one maybe would get very different result.

We need real Mappers of actual worldview behavior. Hard science and not the socially constructivist variety.

Hey Bernt!

Nice to see you. And it was your post that brought me here to check things out. I do like it here, and feel I will enjoy myself. Thank you.

But back to Bright things.

I honestly don't see things that way. And by that I mean that I don't see the Bright umbrella as having declared itself consisting of all atheists, or all humanists, or all non-theists. It's like a Venn Diagram. There will be sets and subsets.

I see the Brights as an organization that says - Here we are and this is what we'd like to do. Join us if you want.

And so you either join, or not. Your option. It's like choosing a political party. No one forces you to join a particular party. You pick the one whose ideas and goals most agree with your own.

And that's how I feel about the Brights. I find that many of their goals are the same as the ones I'd like to pursue. And I like the idea of power in numbers.

Many get caught up in the name. And that's their prerogative. I personally do not find it arrogant, nor am I worried that those of a religious background will be offended by it. That would be the offended party's personal baggage. Nothing to do with me, or the definition I place upon the word.

Bernt, I know you are truly concerned about the lack of unity on this issue. You want to achieve as much as possible, with the backing of as many as possible. That is a noble goal, and I respect you for this concern. I simply feel, like many have said, that gaining a consensus from a bunch of atheists and non-believers is a lot like herding cats. It's not going to happen. So you work with what you CAN get, and do the best you can from there.


Lyn

[variant 13]

Don't like Bright, partly coz I don';t get it. ANyone got a quick definition - I went to a few sites but they were a bit random.

little side track:

We don't know yet if there exists memes within us but from Scan of London Taxi drivers it is clear that memories of how to drive to a certain address actualy do take up place in our heads.

No, London cabbies have a larger hippocampus (I think that's the area they checked, either way) that's all we know. IT may be larger because of all the places they have to remeber, which would indicate that growth, or they may have a slightly larger one to begin with and that is why they are successful as cabbies.

In that those who have normal/smaller hipocampi are not as successful and give up and get a different job.

[arcangle]

Originally posted by Jmebob
Don't like Bright, partly coz I don';t get it. ANyone got a quick definition - I went to a few sites but they were a bit random.



The definition of a Bright?

Someone with a naturalistic worldview.

Basically, that's it.

And I've often seen the question about the opposite. What is the opposite of being a Bright? And a few responses such as Dims or whatever. But the opposite of someone with a naturalistic worldview would be someone with a worldview that allows for supernatural elements.

As for the goals of the Bright Movement, you can find them listed here (http://www.the-brights.net/here_we_stand.htm). But the most important of those goals to me personally would be this one:

We intend to work to craft a social awareness that the constituency of persons who have naturalistic worldviews is large enough to have social and political clout, and it wants such persons to be accepted as citizens on a level playing field with those who hold other worldviews.

Living in Southern USA has probably affected my emphasis on this matter. It's very difficult here to openly function as an atheist. In order to work toward any kind of goal as a person with a naturalistic worldview, I simply HAVE to be part of a larger group in order to make any kind of difference. Majority rules and all that, in most situations my vote simply doesn't count. Because in most circumstances it is a lone vote of dissention.

Which is why I am so enthusiastic about the Bright Movement. I have the opportunity to finally do something, to work toward goals that I consider important, and to make a difference. It's a very heady feeling actually, and one I won't give up over quibbling about the name. It is the planned action that drew me. And in that regard, the planned action, it is a Movement I feel I can honestly support.


Lyn

[BerntRostrom]

Lyn, very good quote you gave us there:
We intend to work to craft a social awareness that the constituency of persons who have naturalistic worldviews is large enough to have social and political clout, and it wants such persons to be accepted as citizens on a level playing field with those who hold other worldviews.

The engkish is a bit too abstract for the average Swede reading it. Even me having so much practice get in troble sorting it all out but I get what they say i hope.

My hope is that even those wh odon't like th name would sign up.

If they are snowed in under a lot of other things they don't ahve to be active bu to sign up give us political recognition.

If the name hinder too many to sign up that is not why it was chosen.

Well only reality will show us how many ther will be.

Paul and Mynga hope for 100.000 if I remember.

So we have to keep the name until that happens then. :)

Bernt

[Mathew Goldstein]

Originally posted by Toto
I think that the reason the term is not popular here, is that "Bright" refers to a weak atheist who is not comfortable with the word "atheist." The term "agnostic" would be a good description for these Brights (tm), but it has been so abused that most people are not really clear on what it means.

Most people on this forum, however, are comfortable calling themselves atheists, and seem to have little sympathy for people who are afraid of the term.

We should be pleased that there is a new group recruiting additional people to write to the Veteran of Foreign Wars protesting the "I believe in God" statement on the VFW membership form. They appear to have been successful in recruiting more anti establishment of theism civil rights activists. All of the anti-Bright carping is nit-picking trivia when compared to that achievement . The Brights, by their actions, deserve our tolerance and respect if no our sympathy. I say three cheers for the Brights.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Thanks to Toto for posting the old Brights threads here. I was particularly interested in what said LadyShea said about how Mynga began with the "internet constituency" but never came here to IIDB first; then the Brights' "mission" was changed.

Bernt, you may find it amusing that when the Brights movement began last year, I stupidly signed my name to their list. Why did I do it? Because I generally support the work of atheists, regardless if I agree with them 100% or not. (Case in point: I'm a member of American Atheists, but I'm also me... hehe...)

I thought Paul and Mynga were KIDDING. That's right, I thought the entire "Brights movement" was a joke, an experiment in marketing. I had no idea that these people (some of who are my online friends!) were serious about what is ultimately nothing more than re-writing the dictionary and being embarrassed to use the word atheist. If I had known that they were serious about using the word "Bright" as a noun, I never would have lent my name to their cause.

Why do we need a new word? We need to explain to people what the existing words mean, maybe. I used to think that it was the task of American Atheists to educate people about all aspects of atheism, but as we know, the group does not educate the public about atheists, just those Capital-A Atheists who subscribe to the "Philosophy of Reason" called "Materialism." And what do The Brights do? They further cloud the issue.

In terms of beliefs, there is no need for gray: one is either a theist (a believer in a god or gods) or one is an atheist (a nonbeliever). Agnostic? *slap* this is not about what you KNOW; agnostics can be theists or atheists. This is about what you BELIEVE or NOT. Do you believe in one "God," a Supreme Being who Created everything, or do you not believe in that? It's pretty simple, yet people make such a big whoop out of it.

Theist = believer. Atheist = nonbeliever. All the other words (Freethinker, Humanist, Bright) are "atheist plus caveat." I'm proud to be a weak atheist. I simply lack belief in deities; I accept my absence of theism as the lack of god-belief defined as atheism, and I don't need any philosophy or extra curliques or bells and whistes tacked on. And certainly, no new definitions of existing words. But that's just me, and I'm just an atheist.

Can't we all just be atheists? (See t-shirt graphic below.)

[Aurelius]

The definition of a Bright?

Someone with a naturalistic worldview.

Basically, that's it.

And I've often seen the question about the opposite. What is the opposite of being a Bright? And a few responses such as Dims or whatever. But the opposite of someone with a naturalistic worldview would be someone with a worldview that allows for supernatural elements.



Perhaps we could make the opposite of brights "supers" ?? Then everyone's happy :rolling: :)

[Toto]

How did we miss this? Moving it to PA&SA

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Well, I haven't seen THIS thread in a while. "Curliques," heh.

Maybe we should leave this open in case anyone who missed the first run of this thread can now discuss the Brights topic.

I suppose I'll stand by my January post. I'm no fan of the word or the concept. Just because you didn't like Madalyn Murray O'Hair is no reason to invent a new word which means something that existing words already define.

I would like to hear from the people who like to call themselves Brights and have them tell us more about why they prefer Bright to atheist, Humanist, naturalist, or freethinker. Maybe their perspective would help people who are interested in the Brights movement.

[truthie]

I do...
I like what it stands for, atheism has so many loopholes. :banghead:

It seems that those who don't like the term are Americans...Europeans seem not to care at all.

I already signed up... :D as a bright.

T

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Let me guide you a bit here... when you say "atheism has so many loopholes" do you mean that it leaves all other aspects of a person's worldview/politics/stance open? And that the word "atheist" is limited (not open) because it ONLY describes nonbelief in gods?

[truthie]

And that the word "atheist" is limited (not open) because it ONLY describes nonbelief in gods?

Yes.
I lack the belief in the supernatural.
Though the definition of “atheism� can be extrapolated to be lack of the belief in the supernatural, which is actually the "original atheism."
I think Anaxagoras was the first one who said, “everything has a natural explanation�.... the first form of atheism that stemmed out of naturalism.
When presenting the bigger picture of atheism, even encyclopedias seem to present ‘atheism’ as lack of belief in the supernatural.


T.

[Gothic_J]

I have signed up as a Bright but I am very skeptical to the name after getting so much negative reactions here. I've tried to tell the Brights that as I remember one out of ten was negative here.

Could you help me find as many as possible who are positive to Bright as the best term for the purpose that Brights describe on their site?

I want to learn from those who are frequent user of this Forum.

Much appreciated hope to get considered feedback from you

Happy new year

Atheist since 1964 and proud of it but also having a worldview that is naturalistic and thus a signed up Bright.

Bernt

I never use bright.

I feel lucky when they know what an atheist is.

[Eudaimonist]

I've already mentioned that I never use Bright as a self-descriptor. I find that it is rude, since it implies that everyone else is a "dim", which is not true and there is nothing to be gained in that.

There is no positive term that can unite all nontheists, so I either just go with "nontheist" when I'm emphasizing my lack of believe in deities, and with "Eudaimonist" when I'm emphasizing what I do believe.

[fortytwo]

That is not true of others here at Infidels. Some are not fave of any umbrellas. That surprised me mightly. How do you get recognised if your not able to show that you are many who cooperate to defend your rights together? That is how one get credibility. To show one is credible.

I think it is more credible to not need an "umbrella". I don't crave recognition. Nor do I need it. I enjoy the company, & communication of other like-minded people. I do not require it.
Which stance is stronger?

[Shake]

As the one who started this whole mess here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=55722&page=1&pp=25) (although someone else would have brought it up eventually) I feel inclined to post my thoughts here.

I think truthie has hit on a subtlety which evades most people. The term 'atheist' is indeed limited in that all it describes is a lack of belief in god(s). Some people like to lump us all together and say that, "The atheists think/feel/believe X," when in fact there may be a significant percentage of atheists who don't. Some atheists don't even like the 'a' word, and these are probably some of those who are drawn to be Brights. I initially, and very briefly, hopped on the Bright bandwagon, but as I think it shows in the linked thread above, I eventually was overwhelmingly convinced that while well-intentioned, the Bright movement is not for me.

They say it's about changing how people think. Well, you don't hear 'gay' used in its 'happy' definition much nowadays, but it's lost a lot of its negative connotation for many folks (myself included). The same with 'homosexual', which is more of a scientific term anyway. To argue why seems like beating a dead horse, but I feel that 'atheist' will come around too. But it will take some time.

And truthie is further correct that this issue is bigger in America than in Europe. We've got people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Roy Moore, and George W. Bush to thank for that. Yes, science is still pushing new bounds, but I fear we (in the US, anyway) may be slipping back into the Dark Ages. Which reminds me of this:
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/S-WhenDarkAges.jpg

But back to the Brights and what they say they're trying to accomplish. Recognition, tolerance, and perhaps even some political clout? There is another organization (http://godlessamericans.org/) which was created for the same purpose. They appear to be better organized and more ready to act than this new group, with many of its would-be members vehemently opposed to the very name. There are plenty of things we can do as individuals to the same end without joining some 'umbrella' group.

Going back, I don't think there's anything wrong with such a limited definition for 'atheist'. I could tack on plenty of other descriptors to tell more about myself if I felt it was necessary. I'm a straight, libertarian, male, NY Yankee loving, humanistic atheist. Yes, many atheists tend to share some viewpoints, but so do many men (or women, or children, or Europeans, or etc. ... you get the point).

So long as we continue to discuss things and share our opinions with theists and other nontheists alike, and exercise our right to vote, we will have a voice and we will be shown to be credible. In some recently well-publicized polls, a large percentage of church-goers were found to be likely to vote. Wouldn't it be something if the papers could publish the results of a similar poll aimed at non-church-goers and found the number to be even higher? I feel I've learned a lot since coming here. I've found that some of my views have changed after reading discussions on all sorts of topics. In some cases, my view remains the same, but the reasons have changed. Some have been strengthened, and others weakened.

I don't know if there needs to be a term to unite all nontheists. I'm happy being an atheist.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

But back to the Brights and what they say they're trying to accomplish. Recognition, tolerance, and perhaps even some political clout? There is another organization (http://godlessamericans.org/) which was created for the same purpose.
The GAMPAC is a project of American Atheists. The Brights movement founders are in opposition to the AA organization. Either they did not like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or they don't like Ellen Johnson, or they disagree with AA's anti-theism stance, or the capital-A "Atheist" stance. The Brights are separatists. Rather than support an existing organization, they branched off to do their own thing. Because of this, the Brights will never support the GAMPAC. Neither group has an interest in atheist unity, only in atheist leadership.
I don't know if there needs to be a term to unite all nontheists. I'm happy being an atheist.
I'm with you 100% here. I'm just an atheist.

[truthie]

Shake

I am glad that I made useful contributions. :)
Now, something that bothered me once is that…after the issue with the Brights, there were people who started claiming that it sounded like a New Age religion. Once a single person said that, then others started agreeing with the statement. When a person made a different statement, then others would start agreeing with this statement too.
To the point that when people who initially signed up saw how others criticized it, they thought it was a bad idea because the majority did not like it! Like majority wins, right? Such as since the majority of human beings believe in a deity, then they are right.

What happened to “think for yourself?� :huh: This bothered me a little.

Anyway, when it comes to Europeans vs. Americans, I have already figured out that there are differences between the two groups and well, it seems that many American atheists seem to be the typical American, stay at home and not too concerned of the fact that atheists are being stumped because of the lack of political agenda and the unity between us and so on.

T.

[Naked Ape]

I like the ideas behind the label bright, but I find that saying "I'm a bright." sounds a bit pompous to me. Besides trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats.

I am fond of the words printed on my beer cooler: "I'm not superstitious, I'm just lucky!" For me this phrase seems to sum it up better than a label that requires explanation.

Some theists will even be pleased with this response until further questioning reveals that I view their true religion (and the concept of luck) as superstition as well.



Cheers,

Naked Ape

[abe smith]

Why do you want to classify/label yourself as (a) "Bright"? Is it like getting into Mensa, in order to be able to display it on your resume'? Self-labelling w/ shower-off labels only makes Other People angry; and apart from that, what need have you to assert (to what "desirable" peer-group?) that you're SUPEEERIOR to ... to whom? Do your work, whatever work you may have decided is yours, and waste not your time trying to join-up into in-groups.