a believer's response to the Brights. [Archive]

thaiboxerken

5th September 2003, 11:05 PM

I never did like that term, and I disliked Randi using it even more. It does smack of elitism, and I always thought Randi of all people would not use superior terms to describe himself, or any group of people.

Why does it smack of elitism? It's simply a catch-word. The word "Atheist" seems to invoke some strange fears amongst the common folk, so they came up with "Bright".

I'm a Bright, and I'm proud to not have any supernatural beliefs.

In fact, two surveys earlier this year, one from Harris and one from Gallup, indicate that even supernatural religious beliefs are held not only by most Americans but by the majority of well-educated Americans.

Educated doesn't mean intelligent. Christians happen to control most of the money in the nation..colleges cost money.

You can't get a post-graduate degree without being taught rigorous examination of evidence--figuring out which symptoms indicate a particular disease, or what facts could justify a lawsuit. These people are among the most rational of our society and yet they still believe non-rational things.

I'm not so sure about this statement. Any post-grads have any comments on this?

But there is another possibility--that some of these rationally-oriented people have found actual proof for their beliefs.

Proof that they can't seem to show anyone. In other words, some kind of delusion or hallucination.

Maybe they've had a personal supernatural experience with prayer that makes them believe in God or an afterlife.

Delusions and/or hallucination.

Maybe they've found a compelling logic to their view - perhaps they’ve looked at the universe and said something made the Big Bang happen or marveled at human development and concluded that "the development of this blob of cells into a conscious human being cannot be explained just through science."

Appeals to emotion are hardly "logical".

For some highly educated people, faith is NOT a matter of faith. Rather, they see around them evidence -- evidence that is, to be sure, hard to explain or prove to others, but is nonetheless quite concrete to them.

In other words... faith.

Perhaps the Brights would dispute the evidence or assert that they have never seen it themselves, and that's fine. But they certainly cannot argue that religion is just for dumb people.

I compell anyone to find any quote in the Bright's website that calls religious people dumb or says that religion is just for dumb people. The author built a strawman, that's all.

I can certainly say that critical thought and reasoning are set aside when "faith" is introduced as a reason to believe.

T'ai Chi

5th September 2003, 11:34 PM

I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

Glory

5th September 2003, 11:52 PM

Well, this an example of precisely the reaction I expected when I first heard the term "bright". It does imply that we think we are smarter than believers and that is antagonistic and counterproductive.

As far as belief and intelligence goes, clearly they are not mutually exclusive. I don't know anyone who thinks that they are.

I spotted a couple of things that bother me, though.

First, if the author wanted to know what atheists think about his evidence or proof of his beliefs he should ask some atheists. I don't like reading what I or someone like me might say. More straw for the straw man.

Second, like so many groups that are not groups, we find ourselves referred to as though we are all of one mind and all acting as one. It isn't specifically stated, but it is implied and I hate that. I know it is impractical but I would like to be dealt with as an individual rather than as a member of a group that I did not join and doesn't actually exist.

Glory

xouper

5th September 2003, 11:58 PM

thaiboxerken: I compell anyone to find any quote in the Bright's website that calls religious people dumb or says that religion is just for dumb people. The author built a strawman, that's all.Of course it's a straw man. But the nature of the label "bright" almost guarantees the emergence of such straw man editorials. I predict there will be many more of them. It will be an unending, unnecessary, and pointless battle that distracts from the main issue of naturalism. And that's one of the reasons I don't like the label and refuse to use it to describe myself.

I have no sympathy for those who adopt the label "bright" and then complain that they are being misunderstood (e.g. those who holler "straw man, straw man"). That problem could have been avoided by choosing a better label. Maybe they aren't so bright after all. :)

Ceinwyn

6th September 2003, 12:02 AM

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but...

the opposite of bright is dull.

I don't feel comfortable describing people who don't share my opinions or beliefs as dull.

Ceinwyn

6th September 2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by Glory
Second, like so many groups that are not groups, we find ourselves referred to as though we are all of one mind and all acting as one. It isn't specifically stated, but it is implied and I hate that. I know it is impractical but I would like to be dealt with as an individual rather than as a member of a group that I did not join and doesn't actually exist.

Glory But that is just what the term "brights" implies.

Ironic, no?

Abdul Alhazred

6th September 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I've got news for you, thanks to overzealous naturalists, if you believe in a natural world, you are a "Bright".

And if you are not a "Bright", you are a "Believer".

Ain't labels grand. You can thank Dennet, Dawkins, and a whole slew of others for this silliness.

Well OK, that makes me a "Bright" I suppose, but I think such a formulation is positively pernicious, not just silly. Much as I respect Randi and have been reading his stuff for decades, I think he's way off base in promoting this terminology.

It makes us sound like members of a psychic elite in a bad science fiction story.

Pyrrho

6th September 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.
Hmm...I don't think so, and I do not agree with your implied comparison of skepticism to Scientology, (there is a clear difference between the term "bright" and "Clear", as used in Scientology) but I agree there is a potential for "bright" to be misused as a descriptive term.

The connotation of "bright" is that a person who calls themselves a "bright" is somehow smarter, more rational, and better than people who are not considered to be "brights". I don't like that. I don't think it's realistic to think that way. I am not a "bright", and I would not appreciate being referred to as a "bright".

Rayn

6th September 2003, 02:35 AM

T'ai Chi said: I've got news for you, thanks to overzealous naturalists, if you believe in a natural world, you are a "Bright".

And if you are not a "Bright", you are a "Believer".

Ain't labels grand. You can thank Dennet, Dawkins, and a whole slew of others for this silliness.

I thought we were allowed to choose our own labels?

Anyways, as has been pointed out by numerous other people (which won't stop me from doing the same) "Bright" is just a laughably pompous term. However, I guess that is to be expected from someone who wrote a book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (which, I think is a fabulous book). Ah well, name-calling never really got anyone very far did it?

smahon

6th September 2003, 06:34 AM

[Pardon the liberal use of the word 'we' in the following post. If you feel outraged by such a term please e-mail me directly, and don't simply clutter the board with "You don't speak for me!" posts. I'm new at this, so be gentle.]

I feel the many people raising doubts about the wisdom of choosing the word Bright have a valid point. However, I also feel that the objections against this or any other name are outweighed by the very fact of having any umbrella term for people with a naturalistic worldview.

I'm sure none of us regard believers or non-brights as dumb or inferior. So what are they?
Are they are simply wrong?
If you think the name 'Brights' causes problems, what about the 'Rights'. Political minefield.
Are they misguided, making us the Guides?
Are they <insert negative term> making us the <insert positive term which used as a collective term sounds pompous, elitist, or comical>?
Surely, this leads to the main reason that choosing to have a collective term, any term, is a useful action in itself.
When discussing religion, we become the atheists, unbelievers,...
When discussing the paranormal, we are the skeptics, rationalists,..
When discussing any topic about which we wish to speak (why else are we posting here?) we become the anti-topic people.
Whether at one extreme becoming heretics and blasphemers spreading our evil soul-destroying message, or at the other extreme simply spoilsports.
We always represent the at-odds voice of protest against a collective opinion.

It's only human nature to listen more sympathetically to those who put forward their own views in a positive manner, than those who only appear on the negative side. The effect is magnified when dealing with groups; with public opinion numbers matter.

Maybe it's about time people wishing to promote a naturalistic worldview made use of the enormous power and influence of being part of a movement. I know words like 'movement' send shudders down the spines of many readers of this forum, but counting yourself as part of a group of like-minded people is not always a bad thing.

So, that's my view. I think a movement, or at least the appearance of a cohesive community of like-minded people, is a good thing.

So, the name...
Bright is a word which in all of its connotations is a positive term.
The only negative aspects of the use of the word are that
(a) applying a positive term to oneself smacks of egotism
(b) the implication that anyone to which the term is not applied necessarily becomes a dull, dour, dim, gloomy, grim, unexceptional waste of carbon

Many serious (and not so serious) political and social organizations choose banner names to declare their aims and herald their intentions; e.g. Amnesty, Solidarity, ...
The more an organization becomes a single-issue body, the simpler the task of choosing a name to embody the goals.

As an umbrella term, the opposite effect occurs, making it more difficult to refine the complex and diverse views covered by the name, into a single term.
"The Naturalistic Worldviewers" - Accurate, but hardly elegant, and difficult to fit across a baseball cap.

So why not Bright?
Why not use a positive term?
Why be apologetic about our views?
If people want to take offence, then tough!

The opposite of gay is sombre,
The opposite of 'gay' is straight.

The opposite of bright is dull
The opposite of 'bright' can be doorknob, or perpendicular, or anything you like.

arcticpenguin

6th September 2003, 07:02 AM

"Brights" want to give the word a new meaning. Do you assume that all "gay" people are happy? You would only do that if you confused the old and new meanings.

arcticpenguin

6th September 2003, 07:07 AM

55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors, dentists and the like - believe in the Devil
...
You can't get a post-graduate degree without being taught rigorous examination of evidence--figuring out which symptoms indicate a particular disease, or what facts could justify a lawsuit. These people are among the most rational of our society and yet they still believe non-rational things.
Not so. He is failing to mention that some of those post-graduate degrees might be in art history, English literature, or other fields that are more about personal interpretation than examination of evidence. Also, most of what is taught in dental schools is about taking care of teeth (surprise, surprise!) that about examining evidence of supernatural phenomena.

smahon

6th September 2003, 07:10 AM

I don't think brights want to give the word a new meaning.
They want to take a common word that has no negative connotations, and adopt it as the label for their group.

I do consider myself a bright.

No, suprisingly enough, I don't assume all "gay" people are happy.
I do however assume that "gay" people are "gay".

Not all bright people are 'bright', and not all 'bright' people are bright.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
the article (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/132/story_13212_1.html&storyID=13212&boardID=63366)

I'm curious about reactions to this article. FYI, I am neither a believer or a bright but I do think I'm pretty clever :)

The article says:

55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors, dentists and the like - believe in the Devil
53% believe in hell
72% believe in miracles

Remember these are people with post graduate educations.

78% of them believe in the survival of the soul after death
60% believe in the virgin birth
and 64% believe in the resurrection of Christ.

You know I really find these figures incredibly difficult to believe. Do these figures refer to the denizens of the USA?? Must do. I can't imagine hardly anyone in England with a post-graduate degree believing in the devil! Jesus! You'd be thought of as being a right weirdo! :eek: I get the impression that the vast majority of people in the UK with post graduate degrees don't even believe in a God or an afterlife.

Are these figures truly for real or what??

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

Insult noted. Clear and Bright does not mean the same thing in any context. In the context of "labels" for people, a Clear is the perfection that Scientologists wish to achieve.

Bright, however is just a name that several naturalists have decided to call themselves. Brights don't claim to be any smarter or more perfect than any other being.

billydkid

6th September 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I never did like that term, and I disliked Randi using it even more. It does smack of elitism, and I always thought Randi of all people would not use superior terms to describe himself, or any group of people.

Why does it smack of elitism? It's simply a catch-word. The word "Atheist" seems to invoke some strange fears amongst the common folk, so they came up with "Bright".

I'm a Bright, and I'm proud to not have any supernatural beliefs.

I usually agree with you about virtually everything, but I really have a problem with buzz words. I don't like being lumped together and I don't like lumping people together. I do not and would not use the terms "bright" or "Woo Woo". It seems to me that by using such terms you are falling into the same nonthinking trap that so many of the folks we are critical of have fallen into. I do not believe in the supernatural or religion, but I would never call myself a bright.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Rayn

I thought we were allowed to choose our own labels?

Anyways, as has been pointed out by numerous other people (which won't stop me from doing the same) "Bright" is just a laughably pompous term. However, I guess that is to be expected from someone who wrote a book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (which, I think is a fabulous book). Ah well, name-calling never really got anyone very far did it?

I'm sure the book explains p-zombie consciousness, and since he seems to believe that we're all p-zombies it surely is an appropriate title!

Go here (http://www.rpi.edu/~brings/moody.zombies.html) to see what I mean by p-zombie consciousness (consciousness [z]).

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 07:58 AM

Of course it's a straw man. But the nature of the label "bright" almost guarantees the emergence of such straw man editorials.

Does it, or is it more the nature of believers? Does the term "gay" mean that homosexuals think of all non-homosexuals as sad people?

I predict there will be many more of them. It will be an unending, unnecessary, and pointless battle that distracts from the main issue of naturalism. And that's one of the reasons I don't like the label and refuse to use it to describe myself.

That's your choice, I will call myself Bright though.

I have no sympathy for those who adopt the label "bright" and then complain that they are being misunderstood (e.g. those who holler "straw man, straw man"). That problem could have been avoided by choosing a better label.

Do you have the same lack of sympathy for anyone that is misunderstood and persecuted because they call themselves gay? Maybe they really can't be gay because their label causes sadness.

What label would you have suggested? It's my opinion that any label would be criticised by the believers. After all, they already think that there is something wrong with atheists are for not believing in their gods.

Maybe they aren't so bright after all.

Oh, I doubt that they are any less intelligent than average.

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 07:59 AM

I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but...

the opposite of bright is dull.

I don't feel comfortable describing people who don't share my opinions or beliefs as dull.

You don't have to describe anyone as being dull if you are a Bright.

Mike D.

6th September 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I get the impression that the vast majority of people in the UK with post graduate degrees don't even believe in a God or an afterlife.

Ian,

That's interesting. I tend to think of England as more of a center for belief in and investigation of the paranormal than the United States. I have the impression that it would be easier to filnd people engaging in various forms of mediumship in the UK than in the US. And of course the SPR is in England. And one hears of various haunted manors, castles, etc. in the UK.

Of course my impression about this is merely an impression, and might have nothing to do with the reality.

Mike

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Well OK, that makes me a "Bright" I suppose, but I think such a formulation is positively pernicious, not just silly. Much as I respect Randi and have been reading his stuff for decades, I think he's way off base in promoting this terminology.

It makes us sound like members of a psychic elite in a bad science fiction story.

You aren't a Bright until you decide to call yourself one. It's a "club" of some sort that you actually have to volunteer to be a part of. Don't like the club, don't join then. It's like Republican, you can agree with many of their views, but it's up to you to call youself one.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by smahon

I feel the many people raising doubts about the wisdom of choosing the word Bright have a valid point. However, I also feel that the objections against this or any other name are outweighed by the very fact of having any umbrella term for people with a naturalistic worldview.

There already is an umbrella term, it's called naturalism. Nor do I believe it conveys negative connotations. Indeed on the converse!

As a matter of interest I would how many "brights" or naturalists actually understand what the term naturalism means?

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by smahon
Maybe it's about time people wishing to promote a naturalistic worldview.

Why do they wish to promote a naturalist worldview? Surely before doing that they should advance some arguments suggesting it is correct? I have never heard any such arguments.

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

As a matter of interest I would how many "brights" or naturalists actually understand what the term naturalism means?

Don't answer him, don't do it! He'll just tell you to stuff your dictionaries and that he's the only person that really knows what naturalism means.

Nyarlathotep

6th September 2003, 08:07 AM

I heard this editorial on the radio the other day. It annoyed me then, it annoys me now. While I thin the label "bright" is a silly and stupid thing, this guys rebuttal is sillier and stupider. The whole arguemnt boils down to a strawman coupled with an appeal to authority (or an appeal to popularity, depending on how you look at it). The strawman is the assertion that the term bright is meant to imply believers are stupid and since they aren't necessarily that this makes them right. The appeal to authority is the assertion that since a lot of PhDs believe in the supernatural, that this somehow means that the supernatural exists. The guy who wrote the ditorial really, really needs a primer on basic logic.

I also have to agree with Ian on a point, I question whether the numbers apply only to the US. I can't see that many educated British (a nation that is very atheistic at all levels, if I recall my numbers correctly) holding theistic beliefs.

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Why do they wish to promote a naturalist worldview? Surely before doing that they should advance some arguments suggesting it is correct? I have never heard any such arguments.

That's because you are stupid, Ian. Nothing will ever convince you that your supernatural world is just a fictional thing.

There is no evidence of anything BUT the material world.

Clancie

6th September 2003, 08:09 AM

From the article

Are atheists and agnostics smarter than everyone else? A group of them have managed to assert that idea
The whole thing doesn't even make sense. Many of the billion people living in China, for example, are atheists/agnostics. Can we assume they're smarter than every religious American just for that reason alone?

The whole thing just makes the "brights" who thought of it seem incredibly stupid.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Mike D.

Ian,

That's interesting. I tend to think of England as more of a center for belief in and investigation of the paranormal than the United States. I have the impression that it would be easier to filnd people engaging in various forms of mediumship in the UK than in the US. And of course the SPR is in England. And one hears of various haunted manors, castles, etc. in the UK.

Of course my impression about this is merely an impression, and might have nothing to do with the reality.

Mike

I certainly get the impression that belief in these things are vastly more prevalent in the usa. Amongst intellectuals in the UK, even saying you believe in a life after death is liable to elicit funny looks. And as for saying you believe in the devil! :eek: Hell, even I'd steer clear of such people! LOL

I've always thought of my beliefs as being of a minority opinion. I'm sort of like the converse of what freethinkers were a couple of centuries ago. I see myself as striking out against the irrational belief system (materialism etc) engendered by the common western metaphysic.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

That's because you are stupid, Ian. Nothing will ever convince you that your supernatural world is just a fictional thing.

There is no evidence of anything BUT the material world.

First of all you should try to understand that naturalism doesn't equate to materialism. Indeed, one could be an idealist and be a naturalist!

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 08:26 AM

And indeed one could be a materialist yet not be a naturalist. :)

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And indeed one could be a materialist yet not be a naturalist. :)

Hence, the need for the term "Bright".

T'ai Chi

6th September 2003, 08:40 AM

I'm expecting "Brights" will sell books with the word "Bright" in the title, and also publish extremely trite articles expouding their philosophy in their "Bright" magazines.

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm expecting "Brights" will sell books with the word "Bright" in the title, and also publish extremely trite articles expouding their philosophy in their "Bright" magazines.

So?

T'ai Chi

6th September 2003, 08:49 AM

This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

thaiboxerken

6th September 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

Hardly, this is just another article fighting a strawman.

Kerberos

6th September 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/003522.html

Bright’s aren't the same as secular humanists :rolleyes: Bright’s don't have to be humanistic and secular humanists can be superstitious as long as they don't believe in god. In any case I agree that the word "Bright" is somewhat arrogant, and I personally would use “Naturalist” instead.

Lord Emsworth

6th September 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are these figures truly for real or what??

The figures reminded me of those of the The Harris Poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359) which was linked to in this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24591) in the R&P.

The percentages match, except for one:
55% vs 52% belief of post grads in the devil.

Hope that helps

Edited to add:
Yes, in the article the Harris poll is mentioned, besides, one from Gallup.

In fact, two surveys earlier this year, one from Harris and one from Gallup, indicate that even supernatural religious beliefs are held not only by most Americans but by the majority of well-educated Americans.

Reaver

6th September 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos

Bright’s aren't the same as secular humanists :rolleyes: Bright’s don't have to be humanistic and secular humanists can be superstitious as long as they don't believe in god. In any case I agree that the word "Bright" is somewhat arrogant, and I personally would use “Naturalist” instead.

Naturalist makes me think of nudists and/or chicks who don't shave their pits...

T'ai Chi

6th September 2003, 09:56 AM

The label "Bright" is essentially a term to replace the 'negative' terms like atheist, non-believer, nonreligious, unbeliever, etc.

Glory

6th September 2003, 10:11 AM

You know, Bright is an adjective not a noun. This bugs me because the thinking that started this whole thing was that we should borrow a page from the homosexual book. Well, gay is an adjective as well. A gay person does not refer to himself as "a gay". He refers to himself as "gay". If you insist on being labeling yourself at least call yourself "bright" rather than "a bright." I know I am splitting hairs. I can't help it.

Glory

Glory

6th September 2003, 10:57 AM

One not very minor point is emerging here. It is not a simple matter to define the term "Bright" as its proponents are using it. Does it include or exclude superstitious atheists? Can it be applied to deists? Can it be applied to someone who believes in extraterrestrial life but not in God, magic, or homeopathy? Does it apply to agnostics? I could go on and on.

"Gay" as it is used in the vernacular has a clear definition. I doubt that "bright" does. I cannot say if I am "bright" or not as I don't know the qualifications required to join the club.

Glory

Tompet

6th September 2003, 11:56 AM

JMHO, "Brights" describes those whose views have been "illuminated" and who are no longer holding on to the beliefs of the "Dark" Ages. ;)

smahon

6th September 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

There already is an umbrella term, it's called naturalism. Nor do I believe it conveys negative connotations. Indeed on the converse!

As a matter of interest I would how many "brights" or naturalists actually understand what the term naturalism means?

The problem with 'naturalist' is that people immediately picture David Bellamy or people playing volleyball in Health and Efficiency.

smahon

6th September 2003, 12:38 PM

I know 'bright' is meant for use as a noun, making a distinction between someone who is bright (traditional meaning) or 'a bright'.
However, what is the problem with using it as an adjective?

"Jim's a strong lad" (physical)
"Janet remained strong for her kids during the funeral"(emotional)
"Jerry emerged as a strong candidate" (likeley winner/favourite)

Just because people haven't used 'bright' to mean "people with a naturalistic worldview", doesn't mean they can't.

PinkRabbit

6th September 2003, 01:22 PM

I tend to agree with those who've pointed out that the term "Bright" seems to indicate that anyone who doesn't agree is on the dull side, which can only make for antagonism. Fine, I suppose, if that's what you're looking for, but likely to cause more trouble than it's worth to my mind.

My other problem is that it seems rather New Agey sounding to me (actually, I could've sworn it was already being used to describe kids who were special and part alien or somesuch nonsense, but couldn't find the reference when I looked it up, so it was probably just something similar). I'm also uncomfortable with the whole notion of trying to gain respect for something that's theoretically unpopular by changing the name to something that nobody knows what it means. It doesn't seem to me like that's changing anyone's mind, just confusing them.

I'd rather see people spend their time arguing that atheists and their worldview should be equally respected, rather than arguing for what seems to me to be an attempt at a rhetorical/categorical sleight of hand that does nothing to change anyone's opinion (at least not for the better).

Barb

Darat

6th September 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by PinkRabbit
...snip...

(actually, I could've sworn it was already being used to describe kids who were special and part alien or somesuch nonsense, but couldn't find the reference when I looked it up, so it was probably just something similar). ...snip...

Could be "Indigo Children" you were thinking of?

Metagifted - Indigo Children (http://www.metagifted.org/topics/metagifted/indigo/introduction.html)

Introduction to Indigo Children

What's an Indigo Child??
by Wendy H. Chapman

Indigo Children are the current generation being born today and most of those who are 8 years old or younger. They are different. They have very unique characteristics that set them apart from previous generations of children. The name itself indicates the Life Color they carry in their auras and is indicative of the Third Eye Chakra, which represents intuition and psychic ability. These are the children who are often rebellious to authority, nonconformist, extremely emotionally and sometimes physically sensitive or fragile, highly talented or academically gifted and often metaphysically gifted as well, usually intuitive, very often labeled ADD, either very empathic and compassionate OR very cold and callous, and are wise beyond their years. Does this sound like yourself or your child?

Indigos have come into this world with difficult challenges to overcome. Their extreme levels of sensitivity are hard to understand and appreciate by parents who don't share this trait. Their giftedness is unusual in such high numbers. Their nonconformity to systems and to discipline will make it difficult to get through their childhood years and perhaps even their adult years. It is also what will help them accomplish big goals such as changing the educational system, for instance. Being an Indigo won't be easy for any of them, but it foretells a mission. The Indigo Children are the ones who have come to raise the vibration of our planet! These are the primary ones who will bring us the enlightenment to ascend.

...snip...

Abdul Alhazred

6th September 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The article says:

55% of people with POST graduate degrees - this is lawyers, doctors,dentists and the like - believe in the Devil
53% believe in hell
72% believe in miracles

Remember these are people with post graduate educations.

78% of them believe in the survival of the soul after death
60% believe in the virgin birth
and 64% believe in the resurrection of Christ.

You know I really find these figures incredibly difficult to believe. Do these figures refer to the denizens of the USA?? Must do. I can't imagine hardly anyone in England with a post-graduate degree believing in the devil! Jesus! You'd be thought of as being a right weirdo! :eek: I get the impression that the vast majority of people in the UK with post graduate degrees don't even believe in a God or an afterlife.

Are these figures truly for real or what??

I don't know for a fact that the figures are for real, but for the USA they are certainly believable.

In the USA people are more religious than the UK.

I'd say that in the UK people are more likely to believe in ghosts, spoon bending, mind reading, aroma therapy, homeopathy, etc.

With UFOs and astrology it's a toss up.

In the USA, our sort of football teams pray for victory, in the UK yours bring in Uri Geller.:p

Abdul Alhazred

6th September 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You aren't a Bright until you decide to call yourself one. It's a "club" of some sort that you actually have to volunteer to be a part of. Don't like the club, don't join then. It's like Republican, you can agree with many of their views, but it's up to you to call youself one.

I don't mind being in the same club as Randi or other self-designated "Brights". I just think the teminology does more harm than good.

OK.
<ul>
Naturalist could mean an old-fashioned gentleman scientst.

Materialist could mean a conspicuous consumer (even if a fundie or a channeler). Or alternatively a Marxist.

Rationalist could mean someone engaging in rationalizing just about anything.

Atheist excludes some "Brights".
[/list]

No I don't have the perfect label, but "Bright" could mean a psychic elite or an arrogant SOB. I prefer to do my explaining on one of the other possible confusions, assuming I bother at all.

PinkRabbit

6th September 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Could be "Indigo Children" you were thinking of?

It could be. The description sounds more or less right, though indigo isn't setting off my memory. Unfortunately, it was more than a year ago that I originally ran into it, and I didn't bookmark things, so I just don't know (my memory appears to have turned into a sieve as I progress through my 30s).

Barb

Abdul Alhazred

6th September 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by smahon

The problem with 'naturalist' is that people immediately picture David Bellamy or people playing volleyball in Health and Efficiency.

And as per an earlier post, nudists and gals who don't shave their armpits.

I thought those guys called themselves "Naturists".

A "Naturalist" to my impression is an old fashioned gentleman scientist, as it might Lavoisier, La Place, Linneaus, Harvey, Franklin, and Swedenborg, among others.

With the exception of Swedenborg, the ones I have mentioned are "Dawkinsonian Brights". Swedenborg was a mystic, a believer, possibly a schizophenic, but definitely an "Historical definition Naturalist".

Dawkins had a formal education as a scientst that did not exist in those days. Randi does not study nature as his vocation.

"Dawkinsonian Brights" of an earlier time who were not "Historical definition Naturalists" include Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.

Abdul Alhazred

6th September 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Could be "Indigo Children" you were thinking of?

(snip)

Indigo Children are the current generation being born today and most of
those who are 8 years old or younger. They are different. They have
very unique characteristics that set them apart from previous
generations of children. The name itself indicates the Life Color they
carry in their auras and is indicative of the Third Eye Chakra, which
represents intuition and psychic ability. These are the children who are
often rebellious to authority, nonconformist, extremely emotionally and
sometimes physically sensitive or fragile, highly talented or
academically gifted and often metaphysically gifted as well, usually
intuitive, very often labeled ADD, either very empathic and
compassionate OR very cold and callous, and are wise beyond their
years. Does this sound like yourself or your child?

(snip)

Ah now I understand. In earlier ages they were called "spoiled brats", but in the Age of Aquarius they are the next stage of human spiritual development. The tip off is that they are "very unique" rather than "just plain unique" like everybody else's children.:rolleyes:

csense

6th September 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Tompet
JMHO, "Brights" describes those whose views have been "illuminated"

I would agree that this is precisely what the term is implying.
Of course, now that you are illuminated as such, you must now realize that the concept itself is nonfalsifiable, which presents an interesting dilemna...

Reager

6th September 2003, 03:15 PM

How about "reasonalist." Too cumbersome?

Mike

Oso

6th September 2003, 03:39 PM

"Bright"? Yeah I like it. I even like the arrogance it could be taken to imply. I am smarter than someone who thinks they can talk to dead people, or that Uri Gellar can bend spoons, or that there's a better tool to understand the universe than the scientific method.

Interesting Ian

6th September 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Oso
"Bright"? Yeah I like it. I even like the arrogance it could be taken to imply. I am smarter than someone who thinks they can talk to dead people, or that Uri Gellar can bend spoons, or that there's a better tool to understand the universe than the scientific method.

Oh yes? What reasons or evidence do you have which supports your contention here?

BTW does understanding the Universe equate to anything more than a description of it?

Oso

6th September 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW does understanding the Universe equate to anything more than a description of it? A reliable, consistent, testable description, kind of like "The Standard Model"? Sounds good to me.

BillHoyt

6th September 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it means the same thing "Clear" does.

Ha ha ha, T''ai. You're even less impressive than you at first failed to appear.

This is a good article on secular humanism revivial, oops, I mean "Brights":

Ooops. The mask has slipped oh so quickly...

T'ai Chi

6th September 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Oso
"Bright"? Yeah I like it. I even like the arrogance it could be taken to imply. I am smarter than someone who thinks they can talk to dead people, or that Uri Gellar can bend spoons, or that there's a better tool to understand the universe than the scientific method.

That figures.

You don't see any hypocriticalness at all at some "rationalist" taking irrational pleasure at the expense of others, all over the silly label "Bright"?

I have news for you: You are not necessarily more intelligent that someone who thinks they can talk to dead people, or that Uri Geller can bend spoons, etc.

BillHoyt

6th September 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

That figures.

You don't see any hypocriticalness at all at some "rationalist" taking irrational pleasure at the expense of others, all over the silly label "Bright"?

I have news for you: You are not necessarily more intelligent that someone who thinks they can talk to dead people, or that Uri Geller can bend spoons, etc.

A piece of advice, TC. Burn your alleged "math" degrees. Then go back and spank your professors. Then log off here. I would suggest you try to contribute, but it is clear you don't even rate as a nitwit. That would require some wit.

Oso

6th September 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
A piece of advice, TC. Burn your alleged "math" degrees.
... Math degrees? Oh that's rich! My undergraduate degree was in math, but the simple logic of software development suited me better. However my brother stayed with it and he's now a tenured professor of mathematics at the Univ of Wash. Just received some kind of award recently, unfortunately I couldn't make the ceremony. So TC If you need any tutoring in either math or logic perhaps my brother or I could help?

Ummh... on second thought, nevermind.

edited to modify the offer

T'ai Chi

6th September 2003, 10:34 PM

Burn degrees? Heh, how silly.

While we're on the subject (just saw your response in Oso's post):

Care to post yours Billy?

We'll see if you have any experience in any area even approaching mathematics / statistics / science, and any higher degrees (or any for that matter).

I doubt it.

I expect the typical massive amounts of handwaving and excuses in response. Don't let me down. You haven't yet dude.

So TC If you need any tutoring in either math or logic perhaps my brother or I could help?

Thanks for the offer Oso, but I have 2 degrees, one in Mathematics (Economics minor), and the other (MS) in Statistics, so I know a little math and logic, although my formal logic is very rusty.

xouper

7th September 2003, 12:15 AM

xouper: ... the nature of the label "bright" almost guarantees the emergence of such straw man editorials.

thaiboxerken: Does it, or is it more the nature of believers?I believe it's inherent in the label itself, since the opposite of bright is dim.

Does the term "gay" mean that homosexuals think of all non-homosexuals as sad people?I don't accept that as a valid analogy.

Do you have the same lack of sympathy for anyone that is misunderstood and persecuted because they call themselves gay?I don't accept that as a valid analogy.

What label would you have suggested?I don't have one at the moment.

It's my opinion that any label would be criticised by the believers.You may be right. But why choose a label that is obviously an easy target to criticize? Why make it easy for them. Why not choose a label that will require some actual thinking to criticize?

After all, they already think that there is something wrong with atheists are for not believing in their gods.Agreed. But I don't think the label "bright" is at all helpful in addressing that circumstance. In fact, I think it does more harm than good.

As always, Your Mileage May Vary™. :)

BillHoyt

7th September 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Burn degrees? Heh, how silly.

While we're on the subject (just saw your response in Oso's post):

Care to post yours Billy?

We'll see if you have any experience in any area even approaching mathematics / statistics / science, and any higher degrees (or any for that matter).

I doubt it.

I expect the typical massive amounts of handwaving and excuses in response. Don't let me down. You haven't yet dude.

Thanks for the offer Oso, but I have 2 degrees, one in Mathematics (Economics minor), and the other (MS) in Statistics, so I know a little math and logic, although my formal logic is very rusty. [/B]

How lovely that you should put these two things together in a single post. Makes my work much easier. Thank you, T'ai. You see, T'ai your claim about your degrees is irrelevant. You are on the internet. Nobody cares. Nobody knows. Even if you have them, how does that help your argument? It doesn't. You are either right or wrong. Your cries of "I have degrees" simply become fallacious appeals to authority.

How lovely that you note your logic is rusty. How lovely.

Now, as for my degrees, I have consistently told people here that I am a bouncer at a local strip club. How does that help my argument? It doesn't. I am either right or wrong.

But you see, T'ai, you have already demonstrated that your degrees are not of much value. You already made a ridiculous statement confounding both statistical (and scientific) approaches to problems with exhaustive induction. It was when you told somebody they couldn't know nobody had superpowers because they hadn't tested absolutely everybody. That is not the kind of scientific answer we'd expect of someone employed in geophysics. That is not the kind of answer we'd expect of someone with an MS in statistics. So I don't care whether or not you have those degrees. I only care about your thinking. So far, it seems shoddy. Proposing to trot out scanned in degrees is a laughable response.

Lucianarchy

7th September 2003, 05:00 AM

Actually, it just goes to show the puffed up egocentric immaturity and lack of self esteem people have who have to make up what they think are 'nice' names about themselves. You can bet these saddos won't ever use that term in a RL debate with people, they'd probably not remain conscious for long.:roll:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th September 2003, 08:13 AM

Don't we need a term for those of us who have a more-or-less naturalistic worldview, yet don't like the word brights? How about shinies? Gleamers? Polished-upies?

~~ Paul

Jeff Corey

7th September 2003, 08:34 AM

Sparkies?
Flamers?
Brilliants?
Anything but Brights.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th September 2003, 09:03 AM

I've got it. As usual, it came to me in a flash of genius while taking my morning shower.

Illuminati

~~ Paul

CFLarsen

7th September 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've got it. As usual, it came to me in a flash of genius while taking my morning shower.

Illuminati

~~ Paul

Genius. Absolutely! :)

How about "Flashers"? Hmmmm.....guess not! :D

7th September 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Don't we need a term for those of us who have a more-or-less naturalistic worldview, yet don't like the word brights? How about shinies? Gleamers? Polished-upies?

~~ Paul

Stud-muffins?

Yahzi

7th September 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Now, as for my degrees, I have consistently told people here that I am a bouncer at a local strip club.
You know that scene we've all seen, where the pretty girl is being harrassed by the drunk, and the hero comes up and chases him off, so of course the girl falls for the hero? Billy does that multiple times a night.

Now I have a pretty good idea what that says about his common sense. ;)

I would envy him, but the last time I went to a strip club, somebody started shooting at the bouncers. (They were drunk, so they didn't hit anything).

Ok maybe I'm weakening my case, lol.

Anyway, I vote for illuminati, too. Bright just seems so... eh... lame.

mummymonkey

7th September 2003, 01:05 PM

Illuminati. Weren't they a metal band?

Rayn

7th September 2003, 01:24 PM

Illuminati? As in the Illuminatus Trilogy? By the inventor of Maybe Logic? I could go with that label. Maybe.

Fnord.

T'ai Chi

7th September 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

, T'ai your claim about your degrees is irrelevant. You are on the internet. Nobody cares. Nobody knows. Even if you have them, how does that help your argument? It doesn't.

Heh, nobody cares, etc., except you apparently because you keep dogging me about statistics, math, and geophysics.

But when it came time to show me the money, you were broke.

How lovely that you note your logic is rusty. How lovely.

I said my "formal logic". Do you undestand what I am typing?

Now, as for my degrees, I have consistently told people here that I am a bouncer at a local strip club.

So what does that mean? Do you have any college degrees? If so, any in the areas of statistics or mathematics?

Next time you trot out the old "burn your degrees" argument, I might be equally as cruel and trot out the old 'get a degree' argument.

But you see, T'ai, you have already demonstrated that your degrees are not of much value.

Poppycock. You just disagree with me. That in no way whatsoever negate my education. Duh.

You already made a ridiculous statement confounding both statistical (and scientific) approaches to problems with exhaustive induction. It was when you told somebody they couldn't know nobody had superpowers because they hadn't tested absolutely everybody.

Logically, I am correct. Logically one cannot conclude that. Practically, yes, of course we can conclude that.

That is not the kind of scientific answer we'd expect of someone employed in geophysics. That is not the kind of answer we'd expect of someone with an MS in statistics.

How would you know, you have NO experience at all in any of these areas.

Proposing to trot out scanned in degrees is a laughable response.

I wonder why you'd say that....

Oso

7th September 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've got it. As usual, it came to me in a flash of genius while taking my morning shower.

Illuminati

~~ Paul Oh my god! What have you done? "They" are already meeting now, in the bowels of the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeck, Holland deciding your fate and the fate of those so foolish as to follow this ill chosen path. The "Council of Thirteen", the thirteen most powerful witches alive today, will soon be given the "list". Do not let your name be on it. Forsake this demonic name, illuminati, return to the Bright light.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

7th September 2003, 05:33 PM

Is the word already taken? Heckeroonies! :confused:

~~ Paul

smahon

8th September 2003, 12:08 AM

Controversial as it may seem I would suggest that anyone not referring to them themselves as a bright, could refer to themselves as
...
...
...
wait for it...
...
...
...
not a bright!

Even better, why not coin a new term "abright".

Q: Are you a bright or an abright?

Quasi

8th September 2003, 05:48 AM

Is it just me, or does the Billy vs. Tai Chi argument here look like that bar argument in "Good Will Hunting" between the obnoxious Harvard grad student and Will (Matt D's character?)

smahon

8th September 2003, 05:53 AM

I, for one, am riveted. What a pity it would have been, if these two intellectual giants had decided to play out their handbags-at-10-paces duel in private.

BillHoyt

8th September 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Quasi
Is it just me, or does the Billy vs. Tai Chi argument here look like that bar argument in "Good Will Hunting" between the obnoxious Harvard grad student and Will (Matt D's character?)

Hey, I'm just a bouncer at a local strip club.

My intent was to unmask T'ai. But he's already done that by signing a post "-Who". He has now asked Hal to delete the "T'ai" sock puppet.

T'ai T'ai, Birdie,
Birdie, T'ai T'ai

voidx

8th September 2003, 08:03 AM

There are a few things to remember also. The purpose for adopting a term to apply to "us" was also to have an official term, with which to be recognized by for political purposes, for lobbying against things we see as illogical, like the push for creationism to be taught in schools in place of evolution, as an example. To this end I suppose I agree it is necessary for those of a mind for serious lobbying and I wish them the best of luck in that regard. However the term as a replacement for the negative "atheist" would seem to be a complete failure. And would have been no matter what. It has been mentioned, and then somewhat proven by others posts, that people will assume the negative connotation no matter the term. So since I'm of a mind that God doesn't exist (while always open to being proven wrong) I'll just stick with the old term of Atheist. No matter what term you adopt, you will always have to clarify what exactly you're stance is. If people aren't of a mind to ask me specifically about my beliefs and clarify them before discussing something with me, then their ignorance is their problem, and not mine.

Glory

8th September 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Sparkies?
Flamers?
Brilliants?
Anything but Brights.

Is there something about the men here that I didn't know?

Glory

thaiboxerken

8th September 2003, 02:54 PM

I don't accept that as a valid analogy.

Then the discussion is over between me and you on this, I won't even try to reason with a person that doesn't accept valid analogies.

Yahzi

8th September 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

My intent was to unmask T'ai. But he's already done that by signing a post "-Who". He has now asked Hal to delete the "T'ai" sock puppet.

Arg! I put that idiot Whodini on /ignore ages ago.

Wait, I put TaChump on /ignore after about his third post.

Nevermind.
:p

T'ai Chi

8th September 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Arg! I put that idiot Whodini on /ignore ages ago.

Wait, I put TaChump on /ignore after about his third post.

Nevermind.
:p

Everyone has that option. I certainly ignore people that I don't find particularly informative, etc. I have no problem with that. :)

FYI Yahzi, this isn't IRC... ;)

I'm not exactly sure what TaChump is supposed to mean though. You are confusing the word Chi with Chump?

xouper

9th September 2003, 10:16 PM

xouper: I don't accept that as a valid analogy.

thaiboxerken: Then the discussion is over between me and you on this, I won't even try to reason with a person that doesn't accept valid analogies.You haven't yet established it's a valid analogy. And I don't think you can. Declaring it so doesn't make it so. From where I sit, there are many holes in the "gay analogy" (one of them being that the gay community did not invent that label for themselves - it was originally intended as a derogatory term). But go ahead and try, if you like, but be prepared to have it challenged. :)

On second thought, I am not really interested in debating that particular point (not because I don't think I can, but because to me, it is simply an uninteresting topic). The bottom line in this discussion is that I don't like the label "bright" and it doesn't really matter to me if your "gay analogy" is valid or not.

thaiboxerken

10th September 2003, 04:16 AM

You haven't yet established it's a valid analogy. And I don't think you can.

Gay and bright are both adjectives that are being used as noun/labels. The analogy is perfectly valid because of the similarity of the word usage. Also, if you want to shoot down an arguement because "it's not a valid analogy", the burden is upon you to demonstrate why it's invalid. In a discussion, an arguement is considered valid/logical until it has been demonstrated not to be so. When a believer uses a fallacy, we tell them why it's a fallacy, not just that it is.

Declaring it so doesn't make it so. From where I sit, there are many holes in the "gay analogy" (one of them being that the gay community did not invent that label for themselves - it was originally intended as a derogatory term). But go ahead and try, if you like, but be prepared to have it challenged.

They may not have invented that label for themselves, but the fact that many gays proudly wear that label makes the analogy perfectly valid. We're talking about "implied" insults or meanings from labels. Gays don't consider heterosexuals somber or sad people.

On second thought, I am not really interested in debating that particular point (not because I don't think I can, but because to me, it is simply an uninteresting topic). The bottom line in this discussion is that I don't like the label "bright" and it doesn't really matter to me if your "gay analogy" is valid or not.

I figured you just didn't like it and can't justify why you don't like it. That's ok, people are allowed their opinions, no matter how irrational.

The Bright's website does not state or intend to imply that they are superior to non-brights. The apprehension felt by the believers and those that oppose the "bright" movement is based on a strawman of their own making.

But, believers do really like to argue against strawmen they build for the nonbeliever's position. They've argued that atheists are only atheists because they want to be able to do "immoral" acts. They've argued that atheists just hate god. Now they argue that Bright's just want to be superioristic.

Jeff Corey

10th September 2003, 05:29 AM

"Superioristic"?
Sorry, but that is a bit Bushistic.
And I still don't like the term Bright.
How about "Not as stupid as all you woo-woos"?

Oso

10th September 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
...
How about "Not as stupid as all you woo-woos"? Now you're talkin'!

BrightGuy

10th September 2003, 12:41 PM

I have a particularly tight association with the Brights. They are my brothers and sisters, my father and mother, my cousins, etc. It's not a metaphorical thing... it's my family name. And, I am also a Bright, as signified by the new noun that's going around.

I have to ask, why do we have to worry about the antonym of Bright? About whether or not someone thinks themselves Dull or Dimwitted if we refer to ourselves as Brights? Did anyone worry about the antonym of Gay? What's the opposite of the noun, Gay? Straight, right? Or heterosexual. What is the BIG deal?

To make naming matters even more complicated, my name is Bill Bright... talk about antonyms. But, you don't have to call me Dr.

xouper

11th September 2003, 01:35 AM

thaiboxerken: I figured you just didn't like it and can't justify why you don't like it. That's ok, people are allowed their opinions, no matter how irrational.That's a cheap shot, ken. Not only have I posted several times how I justify my dislike of the term, I challenge you to refute any of it as irrational.

The Bright's website does not state or intend to imply that they are superior to non-brights.Agreed. I never said otherwise.

The apprehension felt by ... those that oppose the "bright" movement is based on a strawman of their own making.Oh come on, ken, haven't you been reading any of the other threads on this issue? You are so wrong.

My dislike of the term is not based on any straw men. If you're going to criticize my arguments against the label "bright", it might be wise to first have read them (it's easy to find where I posted them in other threads). I defy you to show how any of my arguments against the label are straw men.

xouper

11th September 2003, 01:37 AM

BrightGuy: What is the BIG deal?This has been explained at great length in several recent threads on this forum. You may wish to go read them and your question will be answered.

thaiboxerken

11th September 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by xouper
I defy you to show how any of my arguments against the label are straw men.

Your arguements have been geared towards the "superioristic" or "implied" meanings of the term Bright. That is a strawman.

You still haven't shown how the Gay analogy doesn't apply.

Jeff Corey

11th September 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Glory

Is there something about the men here that I didn't know?

Glory
Probably.

smahon

12th September 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Your arguements have been geared towards the "superioristic" or "implied" meanings of the term Bright. That is a strawman.

You still haven't shown how the Gay analogy doesn't apply.

The only valid application of an analogy with the term gay, is in illustrating that an antonym is not necessarily a word with negative connotations.

I couldn't condone any other analogy, as to do so would seem to belittle (although unintentionally) the struggle that the gay community has been through, and continues to face, to gain recognition and rights.

I would agree that most arguments against the term Bright are straw-man disputes. Where offence is taken, any insult is inferred, not implied.

thaiboxerken

12th September 2003, 03:57 AM

The only valid application of an analogy with the term gay, is in illustrating that an antonym is not necessarily a word with negative connotations.

That's my point, that's the analogy I am making. The Bright's are implying that non-Brights are dim or dull in any way.

I would agree that most arguments against the term Bright are straw-man disputes. Where offence is taken, any insult is inferred, not implied.

Exactly.

Rolfe

12th September 2003, 11:39 AM

As I understand it, the "gay" community didn't coin the term themselves. (I think it was an odd derivation, pejoritively-meant, from "on the game", or prostitute, but don't flame me if I'm wrong there.) Once it was in use, they adopted it, as they felt the need for a term to use which could lose its pejoritive connotations. But it was more a case of making use of a term that was already evolving than coining something from new.

Even there, it does create problems. Old texts using the word in its original sense, begin to sound ridiculous. "Gay" is both a first name and a surname, and people have to live with it, and so on. But it's happened, so we cope.

"Bright" is to me much more annoying. Literally, the word indicates that there is a lot of light around. But it already also has a metaphorical meaning, which is "clever" or "intelligent". Any other meaning hasn't arisen naturally in the language, by some sort of slang attribution, it's a straight-out hijack attempt.

You can't get away from the fact that it is obviously intended to imply that [rationalists, atheists, insert your preferred term here] are cleverer than others. There's no other reason to pick the word. It sounds smug and superior, and I think it was meant to sound smug and superior. Bad idea. As soon as either side gets to claiming that they have a monopoly (or even a running advantage) in intelligence, the argument is in the gutter.

thaiboxerken

12th September 2003, 01:35 PM

You can't get away from the fact that it is obviously intended to imply that [rationalists, atheists, insert your preferred term here] are cleverer than others.

Strawman arguement here.

There's no other reason to pick the word.

Sure there is, illuminated is a synonym. Is it any worse or better than the word "Reverend"? What word should be picked? Can you think of something better or nicer?

It sounds smug and superior, and I think it was meant to sound smug and superior.

You can think that, but the people that came up with the Bright idea have indicated that it's not meant to be so. Are they just lying and being dishonest about it?

As soon as either side gets to claiming that they have a monopoly (or even a running advantage) in intelligence, the argument is in the gutter.

GO to the Bright.net and you'll see that they make no such claims and, in fact, acknowledge that there are many intelligent people amongst the believers.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

12th September 2003, 04:58 PM

It doesn't matter what people's intentions were. The word exudes smug superiority. And if they meant it to mean shiny or sprightly or something, then it's grotesquely New Agey.

They didn't think it through.

~~ Paul

tracer

13th September 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
As I understand it, the "gay" community didn't coin the term themselves. (I think it was an odd derivation, pejoritively-meant, from "on the game", or prostitute, but don't flame me if I'm wrong there.) Once it was in use, they adopted it, as they felt the need for a term to use which could lose its pejoritive connotations. But it was more a case of making use of a term that was already evolving than coining something from new.
Cecil Adams' Straight Dope article on how the word "gay" came to mean homosexual:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_271b.html

Short version: "gay" used to mean promiscuous -- i.e. if you were "gay" you would Do It with anybody, male, female, or otherwise. It was only in the 20th century that it came to refer specifically to Doing It with members of the same sex.

xouper

13th September 2003, 11:45 PM

thaiboxerken: Your arguements have been geared towards the "superioristic" or "implied" meanings of the term Bright. That is a strawman.You are mistaken about my position, for several reasons:

1. The way I have argued the point is not a straw man. I have not invented an argument on your behalf and then refuted that. In other words, I am not saying that you (or most "brights") use the "superioristic" meaning, ergo, I am not arguing against a straw man.

2. To observe that the label carries baggage (undesirable connotations) is not a straw man argument, it is a simple and valid observation. You have not refuted that observation other than to say that is not what you intended. And I have not claimed that was your intention, ergo, no straw man there either.

3. It doesn't matter what you intend the label to mean, since as I have said repeatedly, I am not going to waste my energy trying to explain to people that the label does not mean what they think it means. No straw man argument there either.

4. Some of my arguments on this forum have indeed been against someone who has used the "superioristic" connotion of the label, so it is false to say my argument is a straw man in that particular thread.

5. And finally, you haven't properly characterized or summarized ALL my reasons why I dislike the label "bright", let alone show them to be irrational (or straw men). Try again. And use quotes from my posts so we can all see exactly which point you addressing.

You still haven't shown how the Gay analogy doesn't apply.I already gave a rebuttal (one of several possible rebuttals). Try addressing the point I made to refute the analogy instead of claiming I haven't yet done so.

T'ai Chi

13th September 2003, 11:58 PM

I'm wondering what percentage of "brights" are male? Does anyone know?

I'd be much more for it, if I had no idea that one of the aims and actions was trying to spread a "meme".

thaiboxerken

14th September 2003, 07:27 PM

1. The way I have argued the point is not a straw man. I have not invented an argument on your behalf and then refuted that. In other words, I am not saying that you (or most "brights") use the "superioristic" meaning, ergo, I am not arguing against a straw man.

It is a strawman based on "undesirable" connotations of yours and other's invention. The Bright's did not intent to imply that they are superior in any way to believers. When you base your reasoning on unstated connotations, you are arguing against strawmen.

3. It doesn't matter what you intend the label to mean, since as I have said repeatedly, I am not going to waste my energy trying to explain to people that the label does not mean what they think it means. No straw man argument there either.

Yes it does. Once you decide to hear what you want to hear instead of what is being said, all reasoning and rationality goes out the door. Let's stick with what the intention of the Bright label is instead of invented connotations.

4. Some of my arguments on this forum have indeed been against someone who has used the "superioristic" connotion of the label, so it is false to say my argument is a straw man in that particular thread.

That particular person is NOT the spokesperson for the Brights. I, and other Brights do not agree that we are any more intelligent or superior to believers.

5. And finally, you haven't properly characterized or summarized ALL my reasons why I dislike the label "bright", let alone show them to be irrational (or straw men). Try again. And use quotes from my posts so we can all see exactly which point you addressing.

You seem not to like the label because of all the invented connotations that the believers have given it.

I already gave a rebuttal (one of several possible rebuttals). Try addressing the point I made to refute the analogy instead of claiming I haven't yet done so.

Oh, this rebuttle?

From where I sit, there are many holes in the "gay analogy" (one of them being that the gay community did not invent that label for themselves - it was originally intended as a derogatory term). But go ahead and try, if you like, but be prepared to have it challenged.

This is a very weak rebuttle and it has been shown to be invalid. I'll restate my position on it. The origin of the noun "gay" doesn't matter because it is still a label that many homosexuals proudly wear. If a homosexual proudly wears such a label, does it necessarily follow that they think non-gays to be somber or sad?

Now, do you have any real holes in the gay analogy to point out?

xouper

15th September 2003, 12:22 AM

xouper: 1. The way I have argued the point is not a straw man. I have not invented an argument on your behalf and then refuted that. In other words, I am not saying that you (or most "brights") use the "superioristic" meaning, ergo, I am not arguing against a straw man.

thaiboxerken: It is a strawman based on "undesirable" connotations of yours and other's invention. The Bright's did not intent to imply that they are superior in any way to believers. When you base your reasoning on unstated connotations, you are arguing against strawmen.Sorry, ken, but your analysis does not fit the definition of a strawman argument. A strawman argument is when I invent an argument and then claim you are making the invented argument. Clearly that is not what I have done since I do not claim your argument has any of the "unstated connotations" in it. I do not claim that the "brights" intend the label to be superior, therefore, I am not making a strawman argument.

xouper: 3. It doesn't matter what you intend the label to mean, since as I have said repeatedly, I am not going to waste my energy trying to explain to people that the label does not mean what they think it means. No straw man argument there either.

thaiboxerken: Yes it does.No it doesn't. It doesn't matter WHY some people misunderstand the label, I am not interested in wasting my time explaining why they are wrong. And that is a perfectly rational reason for not liking the label. It has nothing to do with your intentions (or the intentions of any other "bright"), and it is certainly not a strawman argument, as you have claimed.

And the irony here is that I find myself wasting time trying to explain why I don't like the label. This stoopid label has consumed waaay too much of my time already, and that alone is sufficient to despise the label.

Once you decide to hear what you want to hear instead of what is being said, all reasoning and rationality goes out the door.Since that doesn't describe my actions, I guess that comment wasn't directed at me. But if it was, it is not the sort of nonsense that I would expect from someone who is as intelligent as you are. But if you really are suggesting that all my all reasoning and rationality has gone out the door, then I have only two words for you, which I am not allowed to post on this forum.

Let's stick with what the intention of the Bright label is instead of invented connotations.Just because you wish to ignore the baggage and connotations of the label "bright" does not make them disappear. They are there and it is completely rational to address them.

xouper: 4. Some of my arguments on this forum have indeed been against someone who has used the "superioristic" connotion of the label, so it is false to say my argument is a straw man in that particular thread.

thaiboxerken: That particular person is NOT the spokesperson for the Brights. I, and other Brights do not agree that we are any more intelligent or superior to believers.I agree that that person is not a spokesperson for the "brights". Nor did I make that claim. I offered that example to show you how some of my arguments on this forum were not the strawmen you claimed they were. Just because that person does not speak for you does not make my argument to him a strawman as you claimed. What I have done by giving that example is successfully refute your claim that all my arguments are strawmen.

You seem not to like the label because of all the invented connotations that the believers have given it.That's partly correct, yes. But not because of anything the believers have done. I didn't have to ask any believers what they thought before I came to my conclusions. I could see it for myself. The baggage was already obvious to me just from label itself. The fact that some believers have actually behaved in a manner I could foresee, only serves to validate my observations.

What I am arguing is that regardless what your intentions are, the label "bright" itself carries obvious baggage or undesirable connotations. It doesn't matter that those connotations are not what you intended and it doesn't matter that the people who make those connotations are doing so without your consent, my argument is that the label inherently invites such connotations.

xouper: From where I sit, there are many holes in the "gay analogy" (one of them being that the gay community did not invent that label for themselves - it was originally intended as a derogatory term).

thaiboxerken: This is a very weak rebuttle [sic] and it has been shown to be invalid.Where has it been shown to be invalid? And how is it weak? From where I sit, it blows a huge hole in the "gay analogy", for two reasons:

The "brights" invented their label, the gays did not. The label "gay" was being used by non-gays without the consent of the gays, completely opposite from the "brights" who are trying to get everyone else to accept the term.

The label "bright" is not originally intended as a derogatory label, whereas the label gay was intended as a derogatory term.These are all part of "the gay analogy", and clearly they do fit what the "bright" movement is doing.

I'll restate my position on it. The origin of the noun "gay" doesn't matter because it is still a label that many homosexuals proudly wear.The origin very much does matter since the gays did not originally wear that label proudly. The "brights" have the advantage of inventing their own label, so they cannot say that they are doing the same as the gays did with the "gay" label. It is simply a false analogy on that point.

If a homosexual proudly wears such a label, does it necessarily follow that they think non-gays to be somber or sad?Not that I am aware of. This one small aspect is the only part of the "gay analogy" that is analogous to the "brights", but it is not by any means the most relevant part of the analogy. You may wish that people would automatically focus only on this one small part of the analogy, but I propose that is an unreasonable expectation on your part.

Now, do you have any real holes in the gay analogy to point out?Sure. In addition to the two holes I already poked in the "gay analogy", here's another one. All other uses of the word "gay" have since fallen into disuse. The word "gay" has been completely coopted to mean homosexual. I know of no one today who would refer to themselves as gay and not mean homosexual. If you wish to apply the "gay analogy" to the "bright" movement, then you are in effect saying you wish to hijack the word and cause all other uses of the word "bright" to become disregarded. If that is not your intention, then the "gay analogy" does not fit what you are doing.

In summary, since there are more ways that the analogy does not apply than the one that does, that makes it poorly chosen analogy. So unless you are going to always add the disclaimer that you not referring to the many aspects of the "gay analogy" that do not fit the "bright" movement, I feel that using such an analogy conveys more wrong notions than it does correct ones.