Do You Acknowledge Brights?

Do you acknowledge brights?

  • Yes. The term Bright has a valid meaning.

    Votes: 12 50.0%

  • No. The term Bright is not valid.

    Votes: 12 50.0%
  • Total voters
    24
L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
What does everybody think about Brights?


People that considered the term "atheist" to have a negative connotation in public relations coined the term brights. While they feel that people are looking down upon them if they disclose that they are atheists, they believe that using the term brights will have a better effect.


"The brights movement was started by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003 to provide a positive-sounding umbrella term to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion (as the terms "atheist", "infidel" or "non-believer" may be taken to do)."
-Wikipedia


1. Do you believe the label "Bright" is worthwhile?
2. Do you believe the label "Bright" is pointless?
 
Last edited:
I think it's a bit condescending to others. Are we atheists "bright" while others are "dull"? Very negative connotations there if I do say so myself.
 
I don't see a problem with 'atheist' myself, and couldn't care less if dunderhead's do.
 
I don't see any problem with 'atheist' either. Besides, bright sounds kinda silly. I don't think anyone could say "I'm a Bright" with a straight face.
 
As a philosopher, I'm supportive of descriptive, not political, language. Atheist is descriptive, bright is political.
 
One of the dillemas was that certain people did not feel like they could get votes into office if they were openly atheists. However, a 1999 Gallup poll states that up to 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist into office. That was 7 years ago. There really is not much of a disdain for atheists as some would think.

But homosexual candidates were even in a better position at 59% in the same poll. More people would rather have a homosexual in office than an atheist.

In the 1978 Gallup poll, only 26% of the American electorate would vote a homosexual for president. Some believe that the term "gay" and the "gay pride" movement resulted in a better status for homosexuals.

Naturally, certain atheists felt that the creation of the term "bright" as well as a movement to go along with it to signify any person with nonreligious and non supernatural views would be an effective strategy. Just as the term "gay" was used to describe homosexuality. Bright pride.


"The bright meme is intentionally imitating gay's provenance in the explicit hope of copying its success.
The gay meme improved the image and, I dare add, the happiness of a once unpopular minority."
-Wired magazine October 2003


Those that support the term, "Bright", might categorize people as brights though they may have never even heard of the term. They certainly claim that the majority of scientists are Brights. So are all atheists. They categorize anybody that is non-religious to be brights. Even those holding political office claiming certain religions could be "in-the-closet-brights".

Those that do not support the term often categorize it as arrogant as if others were not bright in the intellectual. As if the brights were more than just nonsupporters of religion, but a group describing themselves as inetellectually superior individuals. Wouldn't you too feel good to be a member of bright people and stupid to not be a member? Brights however, claim that the term has nothing to do with intellectual superiority.

Certain non-religious individuals that simply do not wish to be included in the movement do not want to be labeled as brights, and consider it inconsiderate.
 
Last edited:
I am undecided. I like the concept but would have preferred a less contentious name.
 
I find it extremely annoying, luckily it's not very popular. First of all, it's too similar to gay. Plus, I refuse to change for some ignorant fundie or anyone who's deluded enough to believe in magical sky beings that create everything for no apparent reason. I like the fact that religious people hate atheists because it justifies my hate for them. If they were more accepting then I'd have to be more accepting of their intelligence insulting fairy tales, and I don't wanna.
 
Why the hell would atheism be such a shameful thing that they'd need to create some buzz-word just to define the same damned thing. Tell someone you're a "bright" and they're just gonna tilt their head like a dog hearing baby talk.

Seems pointless to me, but whatever floats yer boat.
 
If you are ashamed of your beliefs, you should either reconsider your beliefs, of learn to own who you are proudly.

Fuck what people think of your beliefs.

If you don't like philosophical persecution, work towards quelling such responses by working against the attitudes, not playing impotent games and trying to lure people into forgetting what you believe - because that's exactly what this is.

If you are Jewish and sick of anti-Semetism, should you rename your religion, or attempt to work against anti-Semetism in the best way you know how - personally portraying a positive role, education, outreach, etc?
And if you are actually ashamed of being Jewish, convert.
 
I don't have a problem with the term bright, but then again I don't have a problem with the term atheist either.
Each to his or her own.
 
As an atheist I believe god doesn't exist, god is a manmade crutch left over from the age of ignorance(because although religion has been comprehensively contradicted by knowledge it still serves as said crutch). There is no negative connotation to religion in my believing that unless you are a religious bigot and dont thinjk people should be free to believe in anything other than your own belief.
Atheism is no more or less a negative towards theism as theism is a negative to atheism.
If anything, the theists should strike the words infidel and such from their soft, strong and very very long books to please us.
 
Last edited:
The bright movement’s only aims seem to be gaining power and influence on society for no other reason than to gain power and influence for its members. Members whose views and aims seem to be able to vary greatly so long as they don’t believe in the supernatural. Which would presumably leave various criminals and organised gang members as eligible for membership.

A few references of the movements aims I have taken form the website( http://www.the-brights.net/ ) are;

“initiate and sustain notable collective social and political action”
“undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society”
“Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.”

(the only stated worldview being non-belief in the supernatural, so presumably anything else goes and all are welcome, so long as no belief in supernatural.... hmmmh this surely leaves this political platform wide open to abuse)

There is an interesting statement on the first page;

”The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview”

But as far as I can see these ethics are never listed or discussed in detail. From the rest of the site it seems pretty much up to the individual. Which is of course fine, but then why talk about “the ethics of the bright movement”. Survival of the fittest is an ethic based on a naturalistic worldview, of course its not the only ethic based on a naturalistic worldview and I am sure it is not the most prevalent view amongst the brights, but still...

The brights have as much right to form a society, or to lobby politically as any other group of like minded individuals. I can certainly see how a movement like this has occurred with all the political lobbying done by Christian and Muslim groups, and this, I suppose is a natural reaction to it. A question that arises is, do the brights seek to go further and make it difficult for those who hold religious views or memberships to progress in society and politics?

Now I don’t believe that religion should enter into politics, other then to protect the religious freedoms (or areligious freedoms) of people. To me religion is something personal and individual away from politics – but that is just my view I know. So to me the bright thing, politically, is two wrongs not making a right.

I don’t think bright does equate to atheist, as the statement ‘only accepting the natural’ goes a lot further than simply not believing in god.


lixluke said:
1. Do you believe the label "Bright" is worthwhile?
2. Do you believe the label "Bright" is pointless?[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


In answer to the opening post though, my opinion of the brights movement is…….. generally a very badly thought out idea.

(that is not to say I think atheism is a badly thought out idea, I disagree with the viewpoint but can see the reasoning, this bright thing I cannot. And as I have said I do not see that bright equates directly to atheist.)
 
The term Bright is coherently meaningful, ergo it is valid. I happen not to like it anyway.
 
It's not meaningless, agreed, but what's the point? As one_raven said, "If you are ashamed of your beliefs, you should either reconsider your beliefs, or learn to own who you are proudly".
 
Well, if you are ashamed of your beliefs, then you might describe yourself as a Bright. That's the point.
 
i honestly think that the poitnt of the "brights movement" is pragmatism. you may rightly be proud of your atheism, or non-belief in the supernatural, etc. however, for others it may be difficult to see past. for example, if i was a candidate for statewide office in a state where there is a majority of religious voters, admitting to atheism is basically an automatic loss. with this admission you lose the office, your chance to change things for the better, and your ability to participate in shaping a (hopefully) better future through good government. with this loss however, you retain your unbending and principled stance on the invalid nature of religion. so what? you will take your principles to the grave maybe, but you won't necessarily acheive your goal.
the reason for this is that "atheism" has been villified by most religions since time immemorial. it has become synonymous and in some cases interchangeable with other words with negative connotations like heretic, pagan, infidel, and like it or not, many religious people see it as an open statement that you disagree with their values system. no one takes the moral high ground better than a religious person. they get their direction straight from a superhuman being capable of infinite rewards and punishments. where do atheists get their moral authority from - puny human reason. religious people (esp. christians) already see humanity as hopelessly flawed and doomed to failure without guidance from some source of absolute moral certainty. how does an atheist ever gain an advantage in political debates over moral and values issues if the electorate already has this bias? they don't. that's reality right there. another reality is that if you package something right, people will accept it even if it wasn't what they thought they wanted originally. that's what the brights thing is all about. they're marketing atheism as less threatening, less negative, intelligent, modern, and moral. they are trying to give a new name to an old concept so that people who hold these views get the chance to explain what exactly they think before religious people just tune them out.
if you are a self-described atheist, and you also think that public policies motivated by religious nonsense do damage to society, then you undoubtedly want to see things change. unless you favor violent revolution, the change will only come when people with views similar to your own are given the power to implement their reasoning and allow policy to reflect it. if coming right out and saying you are an atheist in a political campaign is likely to lose you the election, then why not find a better term, one that at least gives you a chance to explain yourself and to put a more favorable face on your ideas? i feel like that was the idea behind the invention of the term "bright". the fact that some people are labeled as "brights" without their permission is a side issue, those people will speak up if they don't actually consider themselves deserving of it. it's still true though, whether you like it or not, that you have to sell an idea in order to get people to accept it, and in order to sell anything, you have to market it and package it in the most attractive way possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top