"Brights" in the news

[shemp]

Commentary By John Allen Paulos Special to ABCNEWS.com (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/WhosCounting/whoscounting.html)

What do you call someone who is not religious? Is there a need for a new name for such people? And should not politicians acknowledge them?

The widely respected philosopher Daniel Dennett and a number of others this past summer pushed for the adoption of a new term to signify someone who holds a naturalistic (as opposed to a religious) worldview. Dennett defended the need for such a term by noting that a 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that approximately 25 million Americans are atheist, agnostics, or (the largest category) have no religious preference.

Come out of the closet, Brights! I am a Bright, and I'm not ashamed!

[aerocontrols]

Sorry. I still think the name sucks for reasons I've given previously.

I'm an atheist. Certainly not a 'bright' or, worse yet, a 'Bright'.

[CapelDodger]

I don't like the term either. I prefer "free-thinker" - a 19th CE British term not much used now, but originally not a compliment. Free-thinkers embraced it proudly and made it their own. "Atheist" is also fine.

[xouper]

shemp: Come out of the closet, Brights! I am a Bright, and I'm not ashamed!I agree with your sentiment about coming out of the closet. And I agree with the naturalist world view. That seems to have been my default view since I was three years old. I would have prefered a different label than "bright", however, simply because I am not interested in wasting my time dealing with the PR mess that comes with it.

[corplinx]

I prefer "apathetic" or "cool" to "bright".

Bright sounds like detergent.

[EvilYeti]

I object to the idea sticking people in a group for no other reason than they aren't already in one. Maybe some of us with "no religous preference", like myself, don't want to get lumped in with the atheists?

[crackmonkey]

This is just silly.

[fishbob]

From the article:Whether called free thinkers, unbelievers, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, conviction-lackers, or whatever, Brights have been around in large numbers since at least the Enlightenment

I like Conviction-lacker. Although it is reminiscent of "Unindicted Co-conspirator".

[Cain]

What's wrong with Humanist? Or secular humanist if that still has religious connotations.

Bright sucks.

[corplinx]

I think bright just has an elitist undertone. I've known faithless people that weren't "bright", "enlightened", or "free thinking".

[a_unique_person]

What's wrong with Liberal?

[xouper]

a_unique_person: What's wrong with Liberal?Perhaps because not everyone with a naturalist world view subscribes to liberal notions. I certainly wouldn't call myself a liberal.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by fishbob
From the article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether called free thinkers, unbelievers, skeptics, atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, conviction-lackers, or whatever, Brights have been around in large numbers since at least the Enlightenment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If that's the 25% of population group, imo it has little to do with the tiny subset that are actually materialists/atheists who call themselves naturalists (or the new buzzword, Brights).

[fishbob]

I am a Bright, and I'm not ashamed!

I am Unconvicted, and damn proud of it.

[Chaon]

I'm not a bright. I'm a Muggle.

Or maybe a Hyper-Muggle.

Marvelous Muggle?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by xouper
Perhaps because not everyone with a naturalist world view subscribes to liberal notions. I certainly wouldn't call myself a liberal.



Not just that. There are many religious people who are liberals.

Quetsion for AUP: What made you think that your suggestion made any sense at all, on any level?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I would be happy with calling myself a bright if I had a huge frickin ego!

[peptoabysmal]

Nawww...

Too easily changed into blight. As in "Blight on humanity".

[Cain]

Originally posted by traveller
I would be happy with calling myself a bright if I had a huge frickin ego!

As a person who has been regularly described by others as a "smug a**hole," "total dickhead" and "egomaniac," even I definitely have a problem adopting the "bright" monicker. However, on occasion I do call myself the "supreme dictator of the earth" or "Philosopher-King" and get strange looks by the ugly, obese, pissed off women who work at the DMV. "Uh, sir, you're supposed to put 'Mr.' in that tiny box." Fools. There's a reason why I'm a brilliant intellectual and you're toiling in a reviled, inefficient government agency. Silly cave-dwellers; knuckle-dragging troglodytes.

[T'ai Chi]

Personally, I am an Abright.

:roll:

Just your freethinking philosophical Daoist mystic atheist theist skeptical Democrat here, but who's picky?

[Valley_girl]

Bleccch.

Sounds like some sort of pansy-ass new-age wuss. Bright. Oh, please.:rolleyes: