Brights

shadowcomplex

How many atheists here would consider themselves 'Brights'?

fudgez

shadowcomplex wrote: »

How many atheists here would consider themselves 'Brights'?

I do not believe in any Supernatural or Mystical powers so I guess I am one.

Would suggest a Poll to get your answer more clearly however

strobe

shadowcomplex wrote: »

How many atheists here would consider themselves 'Brights'?

Had to google it. Yeah, sounds about right.

liah

Care to elaborate on what "Brights" are?

fudgez

However I fear this is some sort of trap....whats the catch?

Just in case im going to state right now that while I agree with the stuff on their website I am not a member nor would I sign up...

for people new to thread heres what the OP should of put up http://www.the-brights.net/

Mrmoe

The name isn't too clever.

Improbable

Erm, I didn't even know what a "bright" was. Is it atheists dressing themselves up and calling themselves brights like creationists dress themselves up and say they're ID'ers?

Zillah

We're smarter and better than you, get over it.

Passenger

This is Richard Dawkins summation of the name 'Brights'.

Dawkins' analogy in the aforementioned Guardian article is instructive, comparing the coining of bright to the "triumph of consciousness-raising" from the term gay:

Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, ****** 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.

Aye, it's nice to see people trying to promote rationality and inform the public but it's still difficult not to sense a little covert arrogance when the term 'Brights' is used.

PDN

Mrmoe wrote: »

The name isn't too clever.

I agree. It's rather silly.

There are bright atheists, bright agnostics, and bright theists.

To try to appropriate the title is, in effect, no different from those infuriating times when posters over on the Christianity Forum infer that without a bellief in God you can't have genuine morality.

How would you feel if theists tried to appropriate the term 'moral people' solely for themselves? Or, perhaps even more pertinent, how do you feel when groups like Youth Defence appropriate the term 'pro-life' to themselves as if those of you who support abortion rights don't like life?

Such language may be useful if your goal in life is to piss people off. And, for those who think that is a good thing, when you get a bit older you might find that pissing everybody else off is not a good way to spread your ideas in society.

Then again, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe those who want to call themselves 'brights' don't actually want to spread their ideas. The name might well be more appealing to those who like to feel they are part of a little elite group.

Beruthiel

I think this was something Dan Dennett started due to the American public having such a big problem with the word atheist.

bnt

I don't like it. It carries an implied insult: if you're not a Bright, you're Dim. Not helpful. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure it works like that bnt. Is the opposite of Gay "miserable?". No it is "straight", words that in any other discourse would be unrelated, let alone actual opposites and as a straight man myself I see no implied insult in people calling themselves "gay" and me not "gay".

This from Daniel Dennett on the very subject:

Dr. Daniel Dennett wrote:

Finally, a point about the word “bright”. It was not my choice, and I shared your misgivings at first, but the term is growing on me. I, like E. O. Wilson, am a wholehearted believer in the Enlightenment, a movement that had its excesses, but gave birth to many great things, including, pre-eminently, American democracy. I prefer bright to enlightened, which smacks of revelation, a phenomenon we brights are more than a little skeptical about. The opposite of gay isn’t glum; it’s straight–a nice enough epithet, unlike, say, crooked. The opposite of bright isn’t dull (or cloudy); it hasn’t been coined yet, and could be, if you like, great or splendid. Let those who are not brights hijack the word of their choice and see if it will play. I’m glad we have a positive and provocative name to call ourselves. It’s a word that even churchgoers like yourself might take to. I look forward to press conferences outlining the views of Bright Catholics for Birth Control, or the Alliance of Bright Muslims and Jews for peace in Palestine.

robindch

bnt wrote: »

I don't like it. It carries an implied insult: if you're not a Bright, you're Dim. Not helpful. :rolleyes:

That may well be partly intentional. After all, christians use the phrase "being christian" to mean being nice, the clear implication being that if you weren't christian, you weren't nice.

.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I'd never use that term. Sounds incrediblely embarrassing. Think Hitchens mocked Dawkins over it.

Whilst Dawkins is obviously a legend in many regards, he can be out of touch with people at times.

Dades

I receive the Brights newsletters and whatnot, and pretty much subscribe to their worldview.

However like other have said, I think they made a terrible mistake with the name, as I'd feel a twat telling someone I was a "Bright".

I always like the term freethinker.

Stercus Accidit

The term atheist might not always be 100% accurate but it is effective.

The more people in life who are succesful, happy and intelligent that clearly reject the superstitions which have been the status quo for so long, the less secure the status quo becomes for those too weak to reject it all on their own.

The emperor has no clothes is echoing through the street and the collective madness is subsiding.

GO_Bear

You need to put on shades to look at me

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

I receive the Brights newsletters and whatnot, and pretty much subscribe to their worldview.

However like other have said, I think they made a terrible mistake with the name, as I'd feel a twat telling someone I was a "Bright".

I always like the term freethinker.

^^This.

While I understand the reason for introducing the term "brights", it seems a bit too condescending.

liamw

Here's the logo:

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

seamus

I immediately assumed it had religious connotations. Light of God and all that nonsense.

"Brights" sound like some new-age bible thumpers to me.

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

it seems a bit too condescending.

I'm with Dades on this one -- it's embarrassing!

Freethinkers ftw!

bnt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure it works like that bnt.

I don't think so either, but I'm not concerned with how it works, I'm concerned with how it looks to people who won't know or care how it works (yet). It's the wrong way to go if you want to attract new people. Imagine your mother was Christian, and you come home saying "I'm a Bright", what do you think she's going to say, then tell her friends?

ChocolateSauce

I'd never use the term. I don't like the high and mighty tone of it. The implication that if you're not bright you're dim is actually arrogant, unlike most atheist arguments.

The name is a bit dim

I'm not one anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo

bnt wrote: »

I don't think so either, but I'm not concerned with how it works, I'm concerned with how it looks to people who won't know or care how it works (yet). It's the wrong way to go if you want to attract new people. Imagine your mother was Christian, and you come home saying "I'm a Bright", what do you think she's going to say, then tell her friends?

I get your point and I honestly do not know what the future holds for the term or what other peoples impression will be of it. I can only look at the past where I see the word "gay" and that word has been massively successful. Maybe at the beginning people said "I do not like the implication that if you are not gay you are miserable or glum" but clearly that concern proved unwarranted in the long run. Of all the arguments I hear thrown at gay people in modern day, this simply is not one of them that I have ever heard.

So in short I think this is not a good argument against the creation of the word. Do not get me wrong though, this does not mean I am FOR The word either. I think a better argument against it is it adds almost nothing and is almost entirely superfluous to any requirements I can think of.

Zombrex

The analogy between "brights" and "gay" is not very apt. I've never been called a "bright" as an insult.

If we are going to take something and turn it around I would much prefer "godless". This can and often is used as an insult, though I consider it a badge of honor

Galvasean

I suppose by definition I would be one, but I don't like associating myself with a group with such an arrogant name.

Jimmy Bottlehead

I hate the term 'brights'. And while I do question the sanity, intelligence and common sense of a theist, it hinders the public image of atheists everywhere.

Personally, I'm much more comfortable calling myself an atheist than a Bright.

Galvasean

Walk down the street. "Hi. I'ma bright."

Response? "Go n' shyte!"

Bottle_of_Smoke

robindch wrote: »

I'm with Dades on this one -- it's embarrassing!

Freethinkers ftw!

Sorry but I think "freethinkers" is a bit up your own hole too. Implies theists can't do anything without their religion influencing how they think about it, which is quite frankly bollocks.

I think Wicknight's suggestion of Godless is awesome.

Beruthiel

When I see the word Freethinker, I think Hippy.
Nothing wrong with hippies now, I'd probably have been one if I were a teenager back in the 60's.

Tim_Murphy

I am only really imagine americans using the term 'bright' to be honest.

What's wrong with just being called a godless heathen? Much cooler.

Calibos

Beruthiel wrote: »

When I see the word Freethinker, I think Hippy.
Nothing wrong with hippies now, I'd probably have been one if I were a teenager back in the 60's.

Hippy and Conspiracy Theorist for me. Strange in that I have only seen the term used in relation to us or by us and yet I can't shake the assosciation my mind has made between the folling term oft used by the above...If you were more Openminded....Freethinker....Ok, its just me then

Dades

Beruthiel wrote: »

When I see the word Freethinker, I think Hippy...

Hmmm. I did eat bean sprouts at lunch today...

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Sorry but I think "freethinkers" is a bit up your own hole too. Implies theists can't do anything without their religion influencing how they think about it, which is quite frankly bollocks.

That's a lot of implication!

I guess freethinking in the context of this forum, indicates the ability to consider any subject free from dogma or religious preconceptions. For example freethinkers can discuss, say, morality, without reference to a deity. Something that is impossible for any Christian I've seen post here on the subject.

Zombrex

Just to expand on what i said earlier, there is sort of two different concepts here

The first is a name that makes a implicit judgement on theists. That to me is what "brights" or "freethinker" or some such would imply. It is saying I'm better than a theist.

The second is taking what is used as a derogatory term, like godless or heathen, and switching this around to show that the judgment theists make about us is wrong (that is much closer to what homosexuals have done with the term like "gay").

While I'm all for arguing that theists are not as freethinking or pro-science or rational as they would like to pretend they are, I'm not sure I would go so far as to use a term to identify myself by constantly making that point.

Much more in favor of the second, challenging the perception of what a godless person is like, that it is some how bad.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm. I did eat bean sprouts at lunch today...

That's a lot of implication!

I guess freethinking in the context of this forum, indicates the ability to consider any subject free from dogma or religious preconceptions. For example freethinkers can discuss, say, morality, without reference to a deity. Something that is impossible for any Christian I've seen post here on the subject.

Eh... in fairness:

PDN wrote: »

To try to appropriate the title is, in effect, no different from those infuriating times when posters over on the Christianity Forum infer that without a bellief in God you can't have genuine morality.

How would you feel if theists tried to appropriate the term 'moral people' solely for themselves? Or, perhaps even more pertinent, how do you feel when groups like Youth Defence appropriate the term 'pro-life' to themselves as if those of you who support abortion rights don't like life?

Though generally speaking you're probably right

Dades

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Eh... in fairness:

In fairness, that's a quote from a Christian on the subject of morality mentioning a deity

Though to be serious for a minute, invoking a deity does not have to go as far as saying "without a bellief in God you can't have genuine morality", which is all that PDN was condemning.

Dave!

Terrible name

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

I receive the Brights newsletters and whatnot, and pretty much subscribe to their worldview.

However like other have said, I think they made a terrible mistake with the name, as I'd feel a twat telling someone I was a "Bright".

Don't lie, you love going down to the local Inn with your newsletter in hand, exclaiming: "I'm the only bright in the village"

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Just to expand on what i said earlier, there is sort of two different concepts here

The first is a name that makes a implicit judgement on theists. That to me is what "brights" or "freethinker" or some such would imply. It is saying I'm better than a theist.

The second is taking what is used as a derogatory term, like godless or heathen, and switching this around to show that the judgment theists make about us is wrong (that is much closer to what homosexuals have done with the term like "gay").

While I'm all for arguing that theists are not as freethinking or pro-science or rational as they would like to pretend they are, I'm not sure I would go so far as to use a term to identify myself by constantly making that point.

Much more in favor of the second, challenging the perception of what a godless person is like, that it is some how bad.

But you can be a bright and still be theist, all you have to do is accept and be part of group promoting naturalistic science. Btw, I hate the term.

MrPudding

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

FYP.

MrP

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Truley

I had never heard of the term 'bright' before reading this thread. I think it's a cringeworthy name, which ironically conjures up images of a creepy American cult! I don't like 'freethinker' either, as it's very presumptuous. Not that I go around calling myself anything, but if I was asked, I would simply say 'I'm not religious.' To the point, doesn't make any assumptions and is relatively inoffensive. Religious or otherwise, people have always loved labelling themselves.

Dades

Truley wrote: »

I don't like 'freethinker' either, as it's very presumptuous.

What does it presume?

Truley

Dades wrote: »

What does it presume?

That being Athiest makes you a default freethinker and that being religious doesn't. There is more to freethought than not believing in God, much much more.

Zombrex

Truley wrote: »

That being Athiest makes you a default freethinker and that being religious doesn't. There is more to freethought than not believing in God, much much more.

That is sort of the point. All of these terms are suggested because there really isn't anything to being an "atheist" other than simply not believing in God.

Dades

Truley wrote: »

That being Athiest makes you a default freethinker and that being religious doesn't. There is more to freethought than not believing in God, much much more.

How does the term "freethinker" presume that being atheist makes you a default freethinker... does not compute!

Atheism certainly isn't a requirement for freethinking - as you say - it's not all about god/religion etc. But my view would be if you invoke religious rules or god concepts in a discussion then you are stepping outside of the definition.

Is it possible for a religious person to call themselves a freethinker? I don't know, but it would seem contradictory.

liah

In the majority of cases I doubt they could be considered free-thinking, if they're legitimately religious-- they'd base their life philosophy on the teachings of the bible (or whatever their holy text may be), effectively they're told what/how to think.

That said, there are many highly educated theists in fields such as philosophy or science who may buck that trend, but not fully imho; it still comes down to the fact that they're basing their beliefs, life outlook and moral system on a book.

Though I reckon someone'll be along shortly to disagree. :pac:

For the record though it kind of depends on the context of the the term "free-thinking," too.

PDN

liah wrote: »

In the majority of cases I doubt they could be considered free-thinking, if they're legitimately religious-- they'd base their life philosophy on the teachings of the bible (or whatever their holy text may be), effectively they're told what/how to think.

That said, there are many highly educated theists in fields such as philosophy or science who may buck that trend, but not fully imho; it still comes down to the fact that they're basing their beliefs, life outlook and moral system on a book.

Though I reckon someone'll be along shortly to disagree. :pac:

For the record though it kind of depends on the context of the the term "free-thinking," too.

I think all of us think inside some kind of framework.

For example, if you refuse to accept postmodernist crap, does that mean you aren't freethinking because you base your beliefs, life outlook, and moral system on a supposition that things should be logical and non-contradictory?

Similarly, I encounter 'brights' (I could really catch on this term - I think Christians should adopt it more, complete with inverted commas, when referring to atheists) who refuse to countenance anything that they see as contrary to the 'laws of nature'.

There's no harm in thinking inside a particular framework, so long as you have thought through carefully what that framework is, and are prepared to change that framework if convincing reasons to do so are presented. What would be legitimately described as unfreethinking would be where people accept a fremework simply because someone told them so.

Indeed, it seems strange that we have the following approach being advocated here:
a) Those who limit themselves to believing in theories relating to the material world, and learn from science, should be called freethinkers.
b) Those who believe in theories relating to the material world, learn from science, and are also open to the possibility of a non-material world are therefore not freethinkers.

'Brights' are funny sometimes.