|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2003 : 21:11:40
|
Want to be a Bright? I just joined...
quote:
A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A Bright's worldview is free of
supernatural and mystical elements.
The ethics and actions of a Bright
are based on a naturalistic worldview.
the word
Bright -- as a noun (refreshing!)
Bright - -as a meme (hopeful!)
Bright -- as an umbrella term (definitive!)
the reason
Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures. The purpose of this movement is to form an umbrella Internet constituency of Brights having social and political recognition and power. There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview. Under this broad umbrella, as Brights , these people can gain social and political influence in a society infused with supernaturalism.
Find out more and sign up here:
http://www.the-brights.net/
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2003 : 03:47:11 [Permalink]
|
The term sounds sort of arrogant. Like, we're bright and you're not.
We have enough terms. Humanist, nontheist, freethinker, atheist, agnostic, skeptic.... |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2003 : 07:53:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
We have enough terms. Humanist, nontheist, freethinker, atheist, agnostic, skeptic....
Well, that is part of the point. It is an umbrella organization to cover all of those who define themselves using one or more of these terms. A coalition. Did you look at the site?
I'm not usually a joiner, but I can see the benefit of belonging to a coalition that will give us more social and political power through numbers.
quote:
Adapted from “What's Right about Bright? ”
(an article by Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert
appearing in the Summer 2003 issue of Secular Nation )
Nonreligious people of “like mind” tend to associate—(if they do associate, that is)—in groups under various labels. Religion-free folks can be found in affiliations of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, secular humanists, naturalists, existentialists, materialists, igtheists, objectivists, etc. Some of our alliances make use of a combination of terms. An umbrella name could extend over all these varied labels of ours. It would replace none of them. Rather, it would simply be the name for all of us together.
“Oh, no, not another word!” you gripe. Yes, one more. It would, we think, be to the benefit of all of us to have an additional word in our repertoire that we might employ to communal advantage. We have proposed, as a generic umbrella for the community of reason, that we all be “Brights.” Whenever we want to be all-inclusive, in a civic sense, we can employ this nonspecific and umbrella label: Bright.
You ask, “Me, a Bright?” Yes, you, a Bright. Each of us individually is always free to go by whatever labels we wish to identify ourselves. Sometimes we are “a this,” and other times, “a that.” Now you can…on occasion, now and then, when you want…proclaim yourself “a Bright.”
As one in a growing constituency of Brights, you can bond yourself with others and help to level a societal playing field. The ultimate communal goal is to elevate the ability of people who have a naturalistic worldview to play a constructive role in the society(ies) within which we live.
Some prominent Brights:
Margaret Downey, Richard Dawkins, James Randi,
Daniel Dennett, Matt Cherry, Mel Lipman, Massimo Pigliucci
Edwin and Helen Kagin, Bobbie Kirkhart, Herb Silverman,
Paul Geisert, Kevin Schultz
Michael Shermer, Mynga Futrell, August Brunsman, Robert McNally
Penn & Teller, Clark Adams, Amy Alkon ,
Richard Roberts (Nobel Laureate)
A side note:
A few months ago I chanced into a dinner with Bobbie Kirkhart, who has served as co-president of Atheists United . After some small talk and dinner ordering we fell into a small debate on how we define ourselves. Bobbie Kirkhart, as a prominent atheist, asked me why I define myself as agnostic. I made the mistake of using the word "integrity" as part of my reason for why I think of myself as agnostic. Maybe I hadn't expressed myself well, and she was quick to jump on that
word with the idea that I thought agnostics had more integrity than atheists because I felt agnostic was a more precise term. I had to point out that I was not impugning her integrity by choosing to be identified as an atheist. I was only talking about myself and how I arrived at defining myself as agnostic. Strictly speaking, I am also an athiest...
We soon settled in to a nice conversation about skepticism, Benny Hinns motivations, and other things. That fact is our naturalistic world view was really very similar, if not the same. It turned out to be a very pleasant dinner.
My point? We are now "also" Brights. And while we may define ourselves differently, our goals are the same, and there is now an organization that represents our very similar naturalistic world view. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2003 : 12:22:13 [Permalink]
|
| Guess there's nothing wrong with like-minded people trying to get together. I suppose I'm just impatient with all the quacks and all the superstitions out there. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2003 : 13:02:05 [Permalink]
|
Welcom aboard kil!
I signed up a couple of months ago. There seems to be quite a bit of resistence to the term "Bright" for some reason. More than one thread at Internet Infidels discussed it, and many were totally against it, for a variety of reasons. But to hell with them, I signed up anyway. If it's good enough for Penn and Teller, it's good enough for me!  |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2003 : 13:50:14 [Permalink]
|
Well, it seems there is some controversy over the name "Brights." I have to admit that I have some reservations about the name too. I guess we will just have to see where this goes...
quote:
E-SKEPTIC FOR SEPTEMBER 1, 2003
Copyright 2003 Michael Shermer, Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic
magazine (www.skeptic.com and skepticmag@aol.com). Permission to print,
distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We encourage
you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can
subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to:
join-skeptics@lyris.net
------------------------
BRIGHT FEEDBACK
When I posted my brief commentary on the new meme "Brights" to represent
atheists, nontheists, nonbelievers, agnostics, infidels, heretics, skeptics,
free thinkers, humanists and secular humanists, etc., I had not intended to solicit
feedback from e-Skeptic readers; nevertheless, feedback I received! In
droves. I have not done a formal count, but I estimate roughly 50 people wrote me.
Two were positive about the word "Bright," the rest were unequivocally
negative, and all for the same reason (as stated in one letter reproduced below). I
had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback from various
sources, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements are best
driven not by committee and excessive discussion (free thinkers, humanists,
skeptics, et al. have been talking about the labeling problem for decades) but by
simply moving forward with an idea to see if it sticks. In general I dislike
labels altogether, but our language and culture depends on them to an extent
that I can't see a way around it.
Our world view is naturalism. Thus, I like the word "naturalist," but I fear
that this conjures up the image of someone like Alfred Russel Wallace
traipsing around the rain forest with a butterfly net. Our magazine is simply called
"Skeptic," and so I also like the label "skeptics," but this is also frought
with pejorative connotations, the most common synonym being "cynic." Since no
one has come up with a better name than "brights" I figured we might as well
go for it and see what happens. Maybe the meme name will catch on in the lexicon,
or maybe it will simply fall into disuse. We'll see.
In the mean time, if any of you would like to suggest some alternatives I
would be happy to collect them all and print them in another e-Skeptic. Just
e-mail me at skepticmag@aol.com
Here is a typical letter I received, which was also posted to the Bright web page.
Michael Shermer
-----
Bright is a good word ?????????
I am a longtime reader of Michael Shermer's materials (from which I got your
email address) and subscriber to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER nearly from its inception,
etc. (that is to say, I'm a 55-year-old scientist/humanist/atheist since my
early twenties and I've thought about these things for many years) and I am
pained to tell you that your choice of the term "Bright" as the one to promote is
a horrible one.
I agree entirely and enthusiastically with your enterprise and the reasoning
that goes into it, but I am dumbfounded that you would choose a term that will
do nothing more than expose us to ridicule and engender hostility in those
who do not agree with our worldview.
"Those people think they're so damn smart . . . smarter than the rest of us.
. . they're the bright ones . . . what does that make us?? FUCK THEM!!"
Never mind all that stuff about "bright" meaning "cheerful and lively" . . .
"the light of science and reason" . . . "tolerance for all" . . . and so forth.
Consider two facts: (1) In the popular lexicon, "bright" as applies to
people means "smart." (2) Believers in God (and etc.) REALLY REALLY RESENT
US ALREADY because we have the gall to reject their most cherished beliefs and
to imply that people like them must be morons if they believe as they do. Put 1 and
2 together, please!!
I can't believe you folks are this out of touch. You are, despite your worthy
intentions, doing all of us a great disservice and can only wind up setting
our cause back, which we do not need.
I find the fact that a number of you have decided to label People Like Me
"The Brights" to be EMBARRASSING. I haven't thought of a better term to use,
but there have got to be many. Can't you instigate some kind of retraction and
make an effort to get some kind of input from a large number of us? Perhaps go
through the subscriber lists to Shermer's and CSICOP's magazines, and other
relevant lists that must be available? Get a larger sampling of opinion on
this???! It's too good an idea to screw up with that horrendous choice of a label.
Okay, Bright Boys??? (Ugh)
Sincerely, and Regretfully,
Joseph Giandalone, Conway, MA
Until they come up with a better name, I will remain a bright...
Edited |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill Burke
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 06:41:05 [Permalink]
|
The name "brights" is manifestly self-serving and pitifully self-aggrandizing. It should be an embarrassment to all who use it for themselves, and it is a disservice to all of us who seek to promote the cause of rational argument.
Ordinary thinkers are already antagonized when one simply points out to them the fallacies in their claims to truth; this absurdity will give support and comfort to those who think us to be nerds and educated fools.
I myself question the basic common sense of those who think this name is a good idea. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 07:58:02 [Permalink]
|
| Yeah, I guess I'll stick with the terms atheist and skeptic. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 10:24:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Burke
this absurdity will give support and comfort to those who think us to be nerds and educated fools.
I am a nerd and an educated fool, and proud of it!  |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Bill Burke
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 10:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by walt fristoe
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Burke
this absurdity will give support and comfort to those who think us to be nerds and educated fools.
I am a nerd and an educated fool, and proud of it!
|
|
|
|
Bill Burke
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 10:44:46 [Permalink]
|
Walt you're proud of being a fool? Then why not use that name instead of "Brights?" |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 19:17:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
Yeah, I guess I'll stick with the terms atheist and skeptic.
Again, what you call yourself is not the point. This is a bringing together of those of us who take a naturalistic view of things. It's frigging coalition. Strength in numbers. It has to be called something.
quote:
Bill Burk:
The name "brights" is manifestly self-serving and pitifully self-aggrandizing.
That does not mean the idea behind the name has no merit. My guess is there will be enough pressure on the organizers of the coalition to change the name. Perhaps we should join Shermer in coming up with suggestions for a better name. We could do that here, or you could email them to Shermer at skepticmag@aol.com
or to The-Brights@the-brights.net. It might be a good idea to voice your displeasure about the name at the The-Brights address. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 05:31:48 [Permalink]
|
| And what would we get together on that is not covered by the ACLU, the American Atheists, the FFRF, Americans United, CSICOP, Quackwatch.... |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 15:48:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
And what would we get together on that is not covered by the ACLU, the American Atheists, the FFRF, Americans United, CSICOP, Quackwatch....
Oh good grief,
What is it about the word coalition that eludes you?
I will probably never join American Atheists. But the things that concern American Atheists I often agree with. If those causes are fought with all of our support under a recognizable name that is more inclusive than the narrower interests of a single group, they will be a lot harder to dismiss. Again, there is strength in numbers.
When members of Quackwatch fight for the repeal of the Food Supplement Act, they would be supported by all of us who, from time to time, would identify under an umbrella name encompassing all of our groups members. Why? Because we have more in common than not.
No one is asking you to abandon whatever group is closest to your heart. This is a way to give that group some added clout to reach common political and social goals.
Naturally, this applies even if you don't feel the need to identify with any particular group. If you see yourself as taking a naturalistic view of things, it would be in your interest to be counted among those who hold similar views. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 09:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'll certainly give that some thought. There's something I don't like about the whole thing somehow, but I can't quite figure it out.
One thing in there I don't like is the statement to the effect that we're not anti-religious. Why aren't we? I mean, I don't want to throw theists in prison. Neither do I want to throw drug abusers in prison, but I'm certainly not pro drug abuse. I'm anti drug abuse - depending on how you define abuse. I'm also anti-religion. I mean, if you care about reality at all, you have to say that reality is not a good thing to throw away.
Like I said, maybe I'm just in one of my curmudgeonly moods. I will have to consider this more. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 10:52:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gorgo:
One thing in there I don't like is the statement to the effect that we're not anti-religious. Why aren't we? I mean, I don't want to throw theists in prison. Neither do I want to throw drug abusers in prison, but I'm certainly not pro drug abuse. I'm anti drug abuse - depending on how you define abuse. I'm also anti-religion. I mean, if you care about reality at all, you have to say that reality is not a good thing to throw away.
Well, I suppose you can be anti-religion. But it's not as though any of us are going to attempt to pass laws that prohibit religious freedom. That would be counter productive. Religion happens and there is nothing, short of education, that we can do about it. There are groups that are anti-religion. But the key to the freedoms we ask for is to allow those of faith the same freedoms. So, it's pretty much a non issue. Our battles on the religion front are to oppose those who don't understand or care about the first amendment and would attempt to impose a theocracy on us, or have religion taught as science in science classrooms, etc. Our opposition is not an anti-religious. They are pro first amendment positions that I will always vigorously support.
You can be philosophically anti-religion all you want be. I bet that I have the same arguments with those of faith that you do. (It should be said that I do not take a strong anti-religious stand. I take a strong rationalist stand. I really don't care if people are religious as long as they don't mess with science or my freedom to reject religion.) But announcing that you are anti-religion while trying to protect the first amendment will only serve to piss off a lot of people we would like to bring around to our way of thinking. Don't ya think? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
