So, what about that "Brights" thing?

[evildave]

In the commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html), there's a link (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) to a story about this organization. (http://www.the-brights.net/)

Apparently, 'bright' means that you possess a 'naturalistic worldview'.

Apparently, they want to give the unreligious a happy term, like "gay" (which is already taken by someone or another), so they settled on "Brights".

All in the name of consciousness-raising, you understand.

So, how do you feel, being a "Bright"?

Wanna go on a Bright Pride parade?

It certainly has fewer syllables than 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'secular humanist' or 'freethinker' or even 'apathetic agnostic'.

They also recommend that you leave it to the person who asks, to come up with an opposite word for 'bright'. Maybe super-bright, so they can say they have a super-naturalistic worldview.

If you have a slightly naturalistic worldview, does that make you a lite-bright, or a bright-lite?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by evildave
In the commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html), there's a link (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) to a story about this organization. (http://www.the-brights.net/)

Apparently, 'bright' means that you possess a 'naturalistic worldview'.

Apparently, they want to give the unreligious a happy term, like "gay" (which is already taken by someone or another), so they settled on "Brights".

All in the name of consciousness-raising, you understand.

So, how do you feel, being a "Bright"?

Wanna go on a Bright Pride parade?

It certainly has fewer syllables than 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'secular humanist' or 'freethinker' or even 'apathetic agnostic'.

They also recommend that you leave it to the person who asks, to come up with an opposite word for 'bright'. Maybe super-bright, so they can say they have a super-naturalistic worldview.

If you have a slightly naturalistic worldview, does that make you a lite-bright, or a bright-lite?

I think it's a silly little game like the whole "black", person of color', "afro-american", etc, thing.

Other than as a convenient shorthand way to refer to ourselves I don't really see a point to it and I doubt I will be calling myself a bright anytime soon.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I think it's a silly little game like the whole "black", person of color', "afro-american", etc, thing.

Other than as a convenient shorthand way to refer to ourselves I don't really see a point to it and I doubt I will be calling myself a bright anytime soon.
Agreed. It's too self-congratulatory. And what have bright's got to be so proud of anyway? We're convincing hardly anyone. Being right is not its own reward. Being effective, which I admit Randi and Dawkins strive very hard for, is what matters.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by evildave
[B]In the commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html), there's a link (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) to a story about this organization. (http://www.the-brights.net/)

I started a thread about this in the Latest Commentary forum: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=22369

There was also an earlier thread started by St_Hereticus: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=22090&highlight=bright

[evildave]

What is this, everybody jump on evildave for startin' a topic day?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22378

Maybe there are just too many frickin' forums with overlapping themes.

I know, I know, someone's probably already complaining about that in another topic.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by evildave
What is this, everybody jump on evildave for startin' a topic day?

"jump on"? There is a less malevolent interpretation. If you are interested in the topic, you may be interested in comments that were already made.

[ceo_esq]

I prefer "muggle" anyway.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I prefer "muggle" anyway.

Fine idea you have there. I think from now on we should all call ourselves muggles. It makes more sense than bright.

[synaesthesia]

I'm a naturalist, not a bright. A god-damned-atheist, not a bright.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Fine idea you have there. I think from now on we should all call ourselves muggles. It makes more sense than bright.

I thought the idea was to avoid a negative connotation? J.K. Rowling certainly hammers that muggles are dull, ignorant people. The BEST of the muggles are painted as people who are honored to have parented a wizardly child.

Count me out - if I wanted a word with built in negative connotations, I would stick with Atheist, Heritic, or even Infidel.

Anyway, isn't Richard Dawkins being just a little unoriginal here? I first saw something about a 'bright' in the SciFi book "The Legacy of Heorot" by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Steven Barnes.

I believe the line was something like, "Where a Bright can lead, a 'Tween' can follow."

(I don't have my copy of this excellent book on hand - I'll look up the exact reference later.)

Actually, I could deal with calling the religious population, 'Tweens'.

[arcticpenguin]

'Bright' and 'Tween' -
they sound like brands of toothpaste.

[Uther]

Since I'm lazy, I'm just going to copy and paste what I wrote on my blog about this:

Looks like Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer, and a whole host of other atheists have decided to co-opt the word "bright" to refer to those of us who have naturalistic worldviews. The website of the "brights" is at article (http://www.the-brights.net>www.the-brights.net</a>.) about it in the Guardian. Before we do anything else, allow me to say that this idea is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. For our international readers, c'est stupide. Es ist dumm. ‚»‚ê‚Í‹ð‚©‚Å‚_‚é.

With that out of the way, let's take a look at this "new" word. Since we've already decided how stupid it is (really freaking stupid), let's look at why it's stupid. GunnerJ put it best on the , in their <a href=http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55722>thread on this topic (http://www.iidb.org>Internet):

Trying to co-opt the word "Bright" to mean "naturalist" just because it's "commonly accepted" and "affirmative" is cowardice, and embarassing cowardice at that. Why should I hide behind some touchy-feely term like "Bright?" I'm an infidel and a heretic and a humanist: I disavow gods, creeds, and superstition of all sorts, proclaiming the power of human beings to change the world. If someone dislikes that, tough. I'm not going to shrink back to some feel-good, embarassing-sounding buzzword just because of their bigotry. There very idea that I should do so, as the advocates of the "Bright" term seem to hold, assumes that there's something wrong with my view that needs to be "sugar-coated." That's BS, and that's the way I see it.

There is no need for a new word to describe people with naturalistic world views. "Naturalists" is the most obvious word, along with the more formal term "metaphysical naturalists." "Humanists," "atheists," "agnostics," "infidels," "heretics"... the list goes on. So what if these words have "negative associations"? Any new word will just pick up those old connotations, while making us look stupid in the process. Will we just turn our tails and flee to the safety of another new word when that happens? Instead of creating a new title to be proud of, let's try to shake the stigma off the old ones. The homosexual community didn't gain acceptance because people liked the word "gay," they gained acceptance because they made people respect them for being gay. Calling ourselves "brights" won't change public perception of us, but a concerted effort to win respect will change the public perception of "humanist," "atheist," or "infidel." There's no easy way to gain acceptance, and I'm disappointed in Dawkins, Randi, and Shermer for acting like there is. We're infidels, plain and simple; let's be proud of that. Now, let me say it one more time for posterity:

"Bright" is a stupid, stupid, stupid word.

-Uther

[Fade]

Being right is not its own reward.

Sure it is.

[Yahweh]

I think the word "Bright" can be misleading. Being an "Atheist" has always worked just fine for me. So what do we call people who arent brights... darks... "brighties and darkies"... thats a little un-PC. I'll stick to being an atheist.

[RichardR]

I posted in the "Randi's Commentary" forum thread. Summary - I think it is a bad idea, likely to backfire.

[reprise]

It's all a plot to start re-merchandising Rainbow Brite™ dolls as mascots for us self-congratulatory types - that way we'll be able to recognise each other by the cutesy little dolls dangling from our rear-vision mirrors.

(Does anyone else do a double-take these days when they see Troll Dolls™ dangling from people's cars - my first thought is whether the owner is making a statement about their internet habits.)

[evildave]

I dunno. Seems a bit wrong.

It always bothers me a bit when atheism sites and groups start talking like the gay groups.

That seems to me like the only probable result of the word coopting. Now atheism will just mean "gay".

"I'm a bright."
"Oh, a fag!"
"No, a bright!"
"Lookee here, not to judge yer lifestyle, or nuthin' but do you realize you're makin' jeesus cry?"
"I'm not a fag."
"You just sed yer gay."
"No, a bright."
"See! You sed it agin!"

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by evildave
In the commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/062703.html), there's a link (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html) to a story about this organization. (http://www.the-brights.net/)

Apparently, 'bright' means that you possess a 'naturalistic worldview'.

Apparently, they want to give the unreligious a happy term, like "gay" (which is already taken by someone or another), so they settled on "Brights".

All in the name of consciousness-raising, you understand.

So, how do you feel, being a "Bright"?

Wanna go on a Bright Pride parade?

It certainly has fewer syllables than 'atheist' or 'agnostic' or 'secular humanist' or 'freethinker' or even 'apathetic agnostic'.

They also recommend that you leave it to the person who asks, to come up with an opposite word for 'bright'. Maybe super-bright, so they can say they have a super-naturalistic worldview.

If you have a slightly naturalistic worldview, does that make you a lite-bright, or a bright-lite?
Lite Brite...

[calladus]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
'Bright' and 'Tween' -
they sound like brands of toothpaste.

I agree! Now we will get confused with some blond model in an all white jump suit showing us her pearly whites!

As for the reference to Brights and Tweens -
Legacy of Heorot, by Larry Niven et al
Copyright 1987
Chapter 13

Where a bright can lead, a 'Tween can follow. There used to be such a smugness in that saying. A genius can take huge leaps, wearing intuitive seven-league boots. Then a corps of engineers and technicians can turn the theories into inventions and principles. A competently trained repairman can fix something that it took a genius to devise in the first place.

I don't know if this saying actually existed before Heorot, I sort of suspect that Niven may have made this up. However, it DID exist in 1987! And it was taken to define genius, not non-religious, or freethinker.

Anyway, I agree with Niven, the word
'Bright' suggests a smugness that I think we should stay away from.