'Brights'

Dave!

Hey folks,

just wondering what my fellow atheists (and indeed any theists who may be reading) think of the relatively new term 'bright' that's been introduced by elements of the secular movement to describe those who subscribe to the generally atheistic/rationalistic/skeptical outlook on life.

The purpose of the coining of this term is to move away from terms such as 'atheist' and 'secularist' which often, especially in America, conjure up thoughts of immorality and lead to mistrust and prejudice.

The idea is supposed to be similar to the highjacking of the word 'gay' for homosexuals. Richard Dawkins explains:

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and qu*er, fagg*t and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". ... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright.

Some people say that it stinks of arrogance and has an air of superiority to it, implying that atheists are "brighter" than theists. It may serve to alienate the secular movement further from the mainstream population, or it may serve the purpose that it aims to.

Either way a number of high-profile atheists and humanists are adopting the term "bright", such as Richard Dawkins, James Randi and Daniel Dennett.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

atheists aren't brighter than theists?


richard dawkins, ponce.. daniel dennet.. ponce..

james randi.. well now, if he's doing it I might just start myself.

PopeBuckfastXVI

What a waste of time and effort. I'm an athiest, end of story. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. I'm open enough to a new term, but "bright" is crap.

I'll be sticking with athiest to describe myself, and I guess if I get a look of derision I'll beg pardon and correct it to satanist, see if that goes down easier... remember it's not important what you believe, just that you do believe .

Hail Santa, our dark and jolly lord!

Chad ghostal

Not a terrible idea, but i doubt it's going to take off.. the name itself is just too bad..

Sangre

Sounds pretty conceited.

robindch

A complete non-starter -- it's trying to pin a label on the kind of people who don't like them!

Scofflaw

Also, I'd kind of prefer 'darks'. 'Brights' is definitely poncy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, I'd kind of prefer 'darks'. 'Brights' is definitely poncy.

Oh yeah - "darks" would be a much better name - I like it.

I just don't understand how when attempting to label a bunch of people blighted by repeated accusations of intellectual arrogance, they chose to call themselves "brights".

It up there on the scale of usefulness with Richard Dawkins appearing on every TV show labelling everyone who believes in a god "deluded".

"Illuminati" would have been great if it wasn't taken.

Schuhart

I agree ‘Bright’ is dumb, and sounds next door to ‘Aryan Nation’.

I’ve always been taken by that story of how ‘Quaker’ was originally coined as a term of abuse, but has lost that association over time.

Using the same approach, I’ve a definite fondness for the word ‘Infidel’, which links present day atheism to some kind of freethinking heritage.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

I agree ‘Bright’ is dumb, and sounds next door to ‘Aryan Nation’.

I’ve always been taken by that story of how ‘Quaker’ was originally coined as a term of abuse, but has lost that association over time.

Using the same approach, I’ve a definite fondness for the word ‘Infidel’, which links present day atheism to some kind of freethinking heritage.

Yeah, I would agree. I don't see much point making up a name like "brights" just so you can go "oh yeah thats me" .. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. I'm an infidel because i reject the dogma of organised religion. I'm a secularist because I believe that states should view all religious beliefs as equal. I don't really have time for another term, of which I'm not even sure what it means

The whole point of turning around a term like queer or n1gger or atheist is that you are turning around the negative imagine that people who use that term have. I wouldn't say I'm proud to say I'm an atheist as I don't think what I don't believe in defines me, but equally I'm certainly not ashamed of it either. If someone said "oh my god are you one of those atheists I read about" I would say "Yes I am. Is that a problem?"

But I imagine if I said "I'm a bright" I would then have to spend half an hour trying to explain to people what a bright actually is and that would eventually just come back to saying I'm an atheist humanist secularists. Which kinda defeats the purpose some what.

Also I must say, TBH, when ever I hear the term "Brights" I instantly think of the Simpsons Episode "Barts Comet" where Bart joins the "Superfriends" club. You just want to shout "nerd!!" and go beat them up

Beruthiel

:Eyesieroll: is all I can say.

I'm going with Scofflaw's idea, if we have to go with a name, 'Darks' is better.
Anyways, what's wrong with the one we already have?

robindch

> [Schuhart] Using the same approach, I’ve a definite fondness for the word ‘Infidel’,
> which links present day atheism to some kind of freethinking heritage.

With a grand sweep of the arm, I present:

http://www.infidels.org/

5uspect

Aren't the Brights just another humanist organization? I don't think there's a plan to change the name of atheism to "Brightism".

Talliesin

DaveMcG wrote:

Hey folks,

just wondering what my fellow atheists (and indeed any theists who may be reading) think of the relatively new term 'bright' that's been introduced by elements of the secular movement to describe those who subscribe to the generally atheistic/rationalistic/skeptical outlook on life.

It's not that new. The term was used in a popular sci-fi story in the 1950s to describe children with particular psychic and intellectual abilities and has since been used by various people to describe themselves either as tongue-in-cheek arrogance or genuine arrogance combined with not getting the point of the story.

DaveMcG wrote:

The idea is supposed to be similar to the highjacking of the word 'gay' for homosexuals.

Gay people didn't hijack the word "gay" it was a term of abuse used in the sense of "prostitute" which in turn came from the sense "of loose sexual morals".

All bright people know this. At least, bright people would check an etymology if they were going to use that etymology as the basis of such a proposal such as this. However I see you are quoting Dawkins, who just assumes that whatever idea is floating through his head at the time is proven somewhere so he doesn't have to bother doing so (he really does have the degree of superstitious response akin to the members of a Cargo Cult building an aeroplane out of bamboo).

DaveMcG wrote:

Either way a number of high-profile atheists and humanists are adopting the term "bright", such as Richard Dawkins, James Randi and Daniel Dennett.

Dawkins is an idiot and Randi is an idiot and a Spammer. I can't speak of Dennett (not familiar with his work) but there are plenty of bright athiests in the world, are any of them using the word?

Schuhart wrote:

Using the same approach, I’ve a definite fondness for the word ‘Infidel’, which links present day atheism to some kind of freethinking heritage.

Infidel is not a term of abuse, it means "non-believer" in the context of a given belief system. In the context of this thread - which is about the concerns of Atheists - I'm an infidel (not believing in the non-existence of any divinities) and you are not (since you do believe in the non-existence of any divinities).

robindch

> Dawkins is an idiot and Randi is an idiot and a Spammer.

Hoping to stir up something on a quiet Friday afternoon, are we?

Dades

Talliesin wrote:

Infidel is not a term of abuse, it means "non-believer" in the context of a given belief system.

Regardless of it's dictionary meaning, I would hold that whether or not a term has negative connotations depends on who's throwing it about.

And I don't think it's possible to be an infidel within a group of atheists/agnostics, given the lack of a positive belief.

Scofflaw

Talliesin wrote:

Infidel is not a term of abuse, it means "non-believer" in the context of a given belief system. In the context of this thread - which is about the concerns of Atheists - I'm an infidel (not believing in the non-existence of any divinities) and you are not (since you do believe in the non-existence of any divinities).

"An infidel (literally, "one without faith") is one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities. More generally, an infidel is one who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle."

For you to be an 'infidel', you would need us to hold to some "particular doctrine, system, or principle". We don't - we are a heterodox group containing atheists, agnostics, alatrists.

We may not share your belief, but that doesn't make you an infidel, because we have no single doctrine for you to reject. Nor is there any implication of 'faithlessness' in you not being an atheist/agnostic/alatrist - to what could we require you to be faithful, that would make you faithless?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Talliesin

The Atheist wrote:

Regardless of it's dictionary meaning, I would hold that whether or not a term has negative connotations depends on who's throwing it about.

Indeed. Schuhart's original argument about "reclaiming" it would only hold if it was a word which was by its definition offensive (like "gay" in the definition under which it was applied to homosexuals, along with "queer" or in the context of religion, "Quaker", "Wiccan", "Gardnerian" etc.).

The Atheist wrote:

And I don't think it's possible to be an infidel within a group of atheists/agnostics, given the lack of a positive belief.

The thread wasn't about Atheists and Agnostics, only Atheists, who have a positive belief in the non-existence of divinities.

Scofflaw wrote:

"An infidel (literally, "one without faith") is one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, especially those regarding its deities. More generally, an infidel is one who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle."

For you to be an 'infidel', you would need us to hold to some "particular doctrine, system, or principle". We don't - we are a heterodox group containing atheists, agnostics, alatrists.

Again, I said "In the context of this thread" which is about atheism rather than atheism, agnosticism and alatrism. Even still there is a shared religious principle that there is no need to worship that I do not share.

In other contexts (most contexts where the word is actually used) you and I are both infidels, which makes the word rather useless for the purpose you proposed it for given its perfect applicability for others of completely different beliefs to yours.

The most common use is amongst Jews, Christians and Muslims for each other with the likes of anyone else as an after-thought.

stevejazzx

Talliesin wrote:

Gay people didn't hijack the word "gay" it was a term of abuse used in the sense of "prostitute" which in turn came from the sense "of loose sexual morals".

It's not meant in the etymological sense but rather in the modern sense, a variation on the theme of the eglish word 'Gay' (meaning Jolly etc). Dawkins assertion is that the comtemporary defintion of the word was hijacked by relatively modern peolpes/homosexuals as a (self) refenece discreet or otherwise.

talliesin wrote:

However I see you are quoting Dawkins, who just assumes that whatever idea is floating through his head at the time is proven somewhere so he doesn't have to bother doing so (he really does have the degree of superstitious response akin to the members of a Cargo Cult building an aeroplane out of bamboo).

First off that is a rather bizarre statement and secondly if I get your meaning (as i think I do) it is miles away from the calm and reasoning scientist and author that I know as Richard Dawkinns.

That said, the idea that 'bright(s)' could be supplanted for atheists is just plain dumb and I can only imagine that there was some tongue left in his cheek after he wrote that.

Dades

Talliesin wrote:

The thread wasn't about Atheists and Agnostics, only Atheists, who have a positive belief in the non-existence of divinities.

Well really it was a thread on the idea of "Brights", which was open to anyone. And from what I can see most commentors were somewhat sceptical of the whole concept, and for a variety of reasons.

On the other hand if we were all self-proclaimed Brights (as if), I would agree with you being an infidel amongst us.

Meh.

Schuhart

Scofflaw et al have pretty much said what I’d say, but I can never resist an argument that doesn’t matter. I threw in ‘infidels’ because it has a nice ring to my ear. But reflecting on it more makes me think it’s even better than the casual impulse that made me suggest it.

It’s probably an irony that different religions and even different factions within the one religion have called each other ‘infidels’. But I think the meaning that insult is meant to communicate is that the other faction or faith have strayed so much from God that they might as well be atheists.

I think it’s less than realistic to pretend that the word has never had negative connotations. In fact, I doubt if anywhere, anyone has causally put ‘infidel’ down in the religion column of any official form as it would be not unlike stating your occupation to be Danger to Humanity. (Damn, there’s a thought. When’s the next census?).

Looking at the dictionary and the wikipedia, the concept of infidel being applied to people of no faith seems well established. Literally, it seems to mean “one without faith”, which is the distinctive feature of atheism.

Pagans are hardly without faith. I don’t doubt someone has called them infidels at some time, but if so the term was misdirected. But I’d have no problem with Pagans and other theists collectively referring to themselves as Brights. The more I think of it, the more it seems to fit.

I take it someone has posted up on Dawkins' own forum that the whole 'Brights' business is a wet dream.

Zombrex

I'm pretty sure "infidel" was used as a derogatory term for non-believers used by members of a religion. According to Wikipedia it comes from the Latin word infidēlis, which means treacherous or unfaithful.

Saying it simply means "non-believer" is like saying n**ger simply means "black person"

Talliesin

stevejazzx wrote:

It's not meant in the etymological sense but rather in the modern sense, a variation on the theme of the eglish word 'Gay' (meaning Jolly etc).

Its modern sense is a variation on the theme of the English word "gay" meaning "male prostitute", which in turn is a variation on the earlier English word meaning "prostitute", which in turn is a variation on the earlier English word meaning "of loose sexual morals". That is a variation on the theme of the English word meaning "jolly".
"Gay" was not "positive, warm, cheerful, bright" when it was adopted by the Gay community, it was an insulting term meaning they'd **** anything or would **** for money.

stevejazzx wrote:

Dawkins assertion is that the comtemporary defintion of the word was hijacked by relatively modern peolpes/homosexuals as a (self) refenece discreet or otherwise.

He can assert all he wants. People who actually have a clue would do something like looking at the history of how the word was used.

stevejazzx wrote:

First off that is a rather bizarre statement and secondly if I get your meaning (as i think I do) it is miles away from the calm and reasoning scientist and author that I know as Richard Dawkinns.

He's quoted in the first post in this thread making up a completely bogus and false history instead of bothering to ascertain what the facts of the matter are.
That's not calm and reasoning science, that's superstitious irrational thinking (not surprising given the author's track record).

Wicknight wrote:

Saying it simply means "non-believer" is like saying n**ger simply means "black person"

Saying it entails an insult, rather than implies it in given contexts, is like saying if you say "black person" you mean every negative connotation and nuance of "black" to be applied to them.

Infedelis means other than what is meant by "fedelis", which means "faith", "the faith" or "faithfulness".

Excluding one does not exclude the other two.

Schuhart

Talliesin wrote:

"Gay" was not "positive, warm, cheerful, bright" when it was adopted by the Gay community, it was an insulting term meaning they'd **** anything or would **** for money.

Totally off the point, there's still a showband going around the Midlands calling themselves the Gay Times. This is just an idle thought, but I find something life affirming in the innocence of the name and the fact they've been touring around for about a hundred years at this stage.

Talliesin wrote:

Saying it entails an insult, rather than implies it in given contexts, is like saying if you say "black person" you mean every negative connotation and nuance of "black" to be applied to them.

You'll have seen yourself where someone has painted themselves into a corner in a thread and doesn't stop digging.

Can I suggest that contending the word 'infidel' doesn't have insulting overtones is something best argued in some parallel dimension where it might be true. I think its current usage in any place that either of us could walk to in half an hour would be vaguely comic, drawing on that heritage of insult. If you can show us a few examples where the word 'infidel' was used outside of the context of an unbeliever shortly to be impaled upon my sword, then maybe you'll find someone willing to listen. Otherwise, you risk vanishing into that twilight zone where language ceases to have meaning.

Scofflaw

Talliesin wrote:

Saying it entails an insult, rather than implies it in given contexts, is like saying if you say "black person" you mean every negative connotation and nuance of "black" to be applied to them.

Infedelis means other than what is meant by "fedelis", which means "faith", "the faith" or "faithfulness".

Excluding one does not exclude the other two.

Hmmmm. I'm beginning to think you have a special relationship with the word 'infidel'. In what circumstance is it not derogatory?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Talliesin

When I quite merrily describe myself as one above

It's not that different as how people might insultingly call me an Atheist (as people often do Pagans) or you a Pagan (as people often do Atheists) or either of us Heathens (not that it bothers me, I know some perfectly sound Heathens). Doesn't mean either of those terms are insults in themselves.

Scofflaw

Talliesin wrote:

When I quite merrily describe myself as one above

It's not that different as how people might insultingly call me an Atheist (as people often do Pagans) or you a Pagan (as people often do Atheists) or either of us Heathens (not that it bothers me, I know some perfectly sound Heathens). Doesn't mean either of those terms are insults in themselves.

In other words, you're already engaged in the process of 'reclaiming' the word - which is to say, you're using a term which certainly carries derogatory implications in a positive manner.

The same way black people can call themselves n****rs, or homosexuals call themselves poofs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Talliesin wrote:

Doesn't mean either of those terms are insults in themselves.

True, but clearly that has zero relevance to the point in hand. Infidel is an insult in the same way as cupid stunt is an insult.

Unthinking vagina, on the other hand, is an utterly neutral term. But presumably, in some context, it could be terribly impolite. Like if you were being introduced to the King of Thailand, for example.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

True, but clearly that has zero relevance to the point in hand. Infidel is an insult in the same way as cupid stunt is an insult.

Unthinking vagina, on the other hand, is an utterly neutral term. But presumably, in some context, it could be terribly impolite. Like if you were being introduced to the King of Thailand, for example.

The only real difference between calling someone an 'unthinking vagina' and calling them a 'cupid stunt' is that you have a little extra time to get away.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

The only real difference between calling someone an 'unthinking vagina' and calling them a 'cupid stunt' is that you have a little extra time to get away.

But there's nothing to say any term in itself is insulting. Wouldn't you agree, you big girl's blouse?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

But there's nothing to say any term in itself is insulting. Wouldn't you agree, you big girl's blouse?

I suppose I would, you irregularly washed sex worker. Even if your argument is, frankly, pants.

cordially,
Scofflaw