A question of label

[James R]

You may have read my previous thread about The Brights. In this thread, I would like to get some suggestions from the people on the Religion forum on the matter of labelling this movement.

The aim is to describe a particular group of people who share some common opinions about the world. The definition of this group is as follows:

"Members of this group are people whose worldview is naturalistic - free of supernatural and mystical elements. They base their ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview."

My question to you all is: what would be a good term for a member of this group of people?

What we want is some kind of identifying label which allows a member of this group of people to identify him or herself to others, saying "I am _______." For example, if the label for a member of the group was "a Bright", the person could say "I am a Bright. Brights are people whose worldview is naturalistic... etc. etc."

This matter has been discussed elsewhere, but I would like to hear your suggestions for labels.

Your suggestion can be:

1. an existing word which already has the right connotations, in your opinion (e.g. "a Skeptic", "a Rationalist");
2. an existing word which has never been applied to this definition before, but which might eventually come to have the new definition given above if used consistently (e.g. "a Naturist"); or
3. an invented word never seen before (e.g. "an agnastic").

Once we have enough suggestions, I will post a separate poll to see which suggestions people like and which ones they don't like.

I invite you to have a go at this, even if you would not fit into this group of people.

 

[(Q)]

Noetic ---------

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

What we want is ...

Who's "we"?

I believe it to be simply incorrect to suppose that rejection of the supernatural constitutes adequate common ground for membership in anything viable and useful.

 

[James R]

PS I'd also be interested in any reasoning you have for suggesting one term or another (if you want to provide some).


ConsequentAtheist

Read "I" instead of "we" if you like. My idea was that this thread would be a co-operative exercise among the participants.

I believe it to be simply incorrect to suppose that rejection of the supernatural constitutes adequate common ground for membership in anything viable and useful.

That's a separate discussion, which is not really the subject of this thread.

 

[(Q)]

Straightforward reasoning.

Noetic - someone who is required to use their mind.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

That's a separate discussion, which is not really the subject of this thread.

I understand that you think so. I respectfully disagree. If the intent is accuracy, and if the sole criteria fo membership is naturalism, then one would think that the term "naturalist" should suffice. If, however, the intent is to better market some presumed 'movement' such as the 'Brights', the question becomes somewhat more complicated and my comment fully relevant.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Noetic - someone who is required to use their mind.

And, presumably, you would refuse to apply the term to those such as St. Thomas Acquinas and Spinoza. That's a little pretentious, don't you think?

 

[James R]

Right then. So far we have:

Bright
Noetic
Naturalist
Skeptic
Rationalist
Naturist
Agnastic

...

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Right then. So far we have: ... , Agnastic ...

OK. I vote that the "Brights" move up to the term "Agnastic"!

There are numerous examples of the more absurd elements of society. The Church of God Agnastic- note, not "Agnostic", but Agnastic- is dedicated to the belief that the regional government computer network, Agnas, is in fact a sentient, aware, "hyper-intelligent" being. They describe their own failures to communicate with the "Agnas Consciousness" as an obvious sign to the awe-inspiring intelligence level of the computer network.

- THE FRINGE

 

[James R]

We're not doing the voting yet!

(Interesting that "Agnastic" is already used for something, though.)

 

[okinrus]

Elatist. Members would be called elaterites, a dark brown elastic mineral which may connotate their naturalist bent.

 

[Katazia]

Normal.

I don't really want to be labeled. I see those who imagine gods and spirits etc as if true, to be abnormal, whatever else they call themselves.

I am simply a normal and rational person who needs no label.

Kat

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Normal.

I don't really want to be labeled. I see those who imagine gods and spirits etc as if true, to be abnormal, whatever else they call themselves.

I am simply a normal and rational person who needs no label.

Kat

----------
M*W: I agree with you!

 

[James R]

Katazia:

I am simply a normal and rational person who needs no label.

That's great, but it's not relevant to this thread. This thread is about suggesting a label for people who fit the definition in my first post.

If you don't fit the definition, fine. If you do fit the definition but don't want the label, fine also.

I'm really only interested in suggestions for a label here.

 

[everneo]

NaturallyNuts.

 

[Katazia]

James,

what would be a good term for a member of this group of people?

Normal.

I think it is also useful to provide opinions and rationale for the choices as well.

Kat

 

[ScrollMaker]

Perspications or a Perspicate. - Sounds kinda funny, but it's fitting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perspicacious

 

[spidergoat]

How about the bores?
As in, I am an insufferable bore that must name my worldview for marketing purposes...

 

[Max Action]

"Atheist" works just fine.

A -prefix meaning lacking, or without, as in "asymmetry" and "asexual."
theos - god or gods
ism - belief in

Atheism: the lack of belief in god or gods.

I suppose there is a whole back-debate about this I haven't looked at yet. I've had those before: I say we just skip it, and declare that any wishy-washy agnostic types who shy from the term "atheism" are officially wrong.

My religious-belief classification schema is better than yours, I'm prettier, and my taste in music is objectively better than yours. Shhh.



Hmm.

Unless you are worried about people who don't technically believe in anything that could be called a "god," yet do not subscribe to a purely naturalistic viewpoint in their reality-modelling.

In that case, I propose that we call the naturalistic types "chocolate," and the metaphysical types "vanilla."

Personally, I strongly prefer chocolate, but I try my best to remember that this preference really doesn't matter as much as we all like to pretend it does. Perhaps these proposed titles will help us all remember just how arbitrary the memes that we "choose" to accept or reject really are.

 

[Max Action]

How about the bores?
As in, I am an insufferable bore that must name my worldview for marketing purposes...

Hey, in the Dawinian jungle of competing ideas, any little edge in making your position more contagious counts!

Now, if I could just remember WHY the successful spread of my perspective was supposed to matter so darn much ...