Do You Acknowledge Brights?

[one_raven]

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.

That does seem like the point, and it is ridiculous and ineffective.

Not only will the people who would be distrustful and unwilling to vote for an Atheist STILL be distrustful and unwilling to vote for someone who doesn't believe in God, but calls himself by another name, but imagine how those Christians will react when that person is asked, "Are you Christian" and they answer, "No, I am a Bright". He may as well have answered, "No, I'm not a Christian, I am an intelligent, thinking man".
They are shooting themselves in the foot.

Besides, who do they think they will fool, by changing the name - regardless of the name they choose?
"Are you an Atheist?"
"No I am not. Actually, I am a Spiritual Naturalist."
"What does that mean? Do you believe in God?"
"No, I don't believe in God, actually."
"So, you're an Atheist."
"No, I'm a Spiritual Naturalist!"
"Whatever... Atheist."
Atheist is not a negative term inherently.
It has a negative connotation to those who think not believing in God is a negative thing. If Atheists referred to temselves as Bunny Rabbits, then THAT term would end up with a negative connotation to those same people.
It's not about the word.
It's about closed-minded intolerance of differing viewpoints.

It's pretty simple.
The people who will refuse to vote for an Atheist, regardless of the candidate's positions, ideas and ideals, will refuse to vote for a Bright as well.
In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the vast majority of the people who will refuse to vote for someone based solely on the fact that the candidate does not believe in God, will also refuse to vote for someone who is not the same religion as them, regardless of what religion that is - certainly not if it was not a religion that did not recognize and praise Abraham's God as the sole discretionary measure of morality.

So these people do not win over the Christians (or whomever they are trying to fool/sell-out to), but they DO lose those who recognize that by changing what they call themselves they are sacrificaing their own integrity and pride in their own reason that brought them to their decision to be an Atheist in the first place.

I personally would vote for an Atheist, but I wouldn't vote for a bright.
I wouldn't want to help place a person in office who doesn't have the courage of his/her convictions.

Just as I would vote for a Muslim, but not for someone who was a Muslim, but didn't refer to themselves as such, to try and win more votes.

 

[Athelwulf]

If people shy away from "atheist" because of the negative connotation it has acquired, then the people who gave the term a bad connotation in the first place — theists — win. Furthermore, it doesn't fix the problem. We must definatly declare, "Yes, I am an atheist! Got a problem with it?".

It will become the bad word it's made out to be if you passively allow it.

 

[lixluke]

Brights are not just atheists. Many of them are antireligious. Others are agnostics, naturalists, and other beliefs. A good portion is homosexual. The movement has special appeal for homosexuals that have been persecuted by religion.

Their basic idea is that they are not happy about how religion is so integrated in society. Their goal is basically witnessing nonreligion to others in the same way Christians witness christianity to others.

 

[charles cure]

So these people do not win over the Christians (or whomever they are trying to fool/sell-out to), but they DO lose those who recognize that by changing what they call themselves they are sacrificaing their own integrity and pride in their own reason that brought them to their decision to be an Atheist in the first place.

I personally would vote for an Atheist, but I wouldn't vote for a bright.
I wouldn't want to help place a person in office who doesn't have the courage of his/her convictions.

Just as I would vote for a Muslim, but not for someone who was a Muslim, but didn't refer to themselves as such, to try and win more votes.

i agree with most of what you said except this portion. some brights really are "spiritual naturalists" or whatever they call it. they are those types of people that don't believe in a personified god, but have vague ideas about a creative force that unifies or underpins the universe that might be referred to as god. at least that's what i have seen described. I think that the major problem is that anyone who doesn't believe in a religious god or a personified god has been made out (at least in western cultures) to be an atheist, impious, immoral, and negative. i feel like part of the point of the "brights" thing is to give people an opportunity to explain what they do believe instead of focusing on what they don't believe. obviously you dismiss this concept out of hand, but i don't think that means that everyone does. sometimes all you need is a little crack in the door to get your foot in and let people know that you are possibly significantly different than what they think you are. that's just my opinion, but it's not like it hasn't been done before. the gay movement is the obvious example, but im sure there are others.


as for selling out or pretending to be something they aren't, i don't know really. i think i'd rather have an atheist call him or herself a bright to get elected than have an athesit call him or herself a christian in order to. plus, i think that "brights" may be the umbrella term that some of these people are looking for to describe themselves. maybe they have atheistic leanings or antireligious sympathies, but don't specifically identify with the term "atheist". i mean, for me it's simple - i'm an athesit. for other people it is more complicated than that. they may be reluctant or unable to find that kind of black and white clarity. why should that stop them from finding others to identify with and to help articulate and espouse a different set of paradigms for belief as it relates to society?

i guess, like it or not, elections these days are about doing pretty much anything you can to get votes. politicians don't have integrity, they can't, they have to be too flexible, they have to bend to the public will, they have to give the people what they want, often despite personal objection. they also spend their careers immersed in a culture of utter corruption and moral relativism, where ends often justify the means. what would you rather have, religious zealot scoundrels running your government, or scoundrels who at least nominally share some of your ideals? integrity is for someone like you or me, that's why we call ourselves atheists and don't run for office. the bright movement is for people who want to remain more low key in order to serve some other kind of purpose. that doesn't mean it's totally wrong or unrespectable. a greater man than me once said - "sometimes selling out is waking up".

 

[one_raven]

Charles,
You make some good points, but I disagree with the sentiment you portray in your last paragraph.
An elected official is there to represent the people who placed the official in office in the first place.
Therefore, "bending to the will" of the electroate does nto negate the person's integrity, because they are supposed to be there to represent the electorate.
In fact, an elected official with integrity will often vote against their own personal beliefs if that is what the people who put huim in the job want. Those who do not vote with the conscience anf will of the people are the ones who act without integrity.
Those who are unwilling to act accordingly with being a representative of the people, regardless of their personal beliefs, should not hold public office.

An elected representative with integrity will vote in accordance with his Christian majority electorate, while, at the same time, openly acknowledge being an Atheist and personally disagreeing with the majority.

 

[charles cure]

Charles,
You make some good points, but I disagree with the sentiment you portray in your last paragraph.
An elected official is there to represent the people who placed the official in office in the first place.
Therefore, "bending to the will" of the electroate does nto negate the person's integrity, because they are supposed to be there to represent the electorate.
In fact, an elected official with integrity will often vote against their own personal beliefs if that is what the people who put huim in the job want. Those who do not vote with the conscience anf will of the people are the ones who act without integrity.
Those who are unwilling to act accordingly with being a representative of the people, regardless of their personal beliefs, should not hold public office.

i agree with everything that you just said. its an ideal that i think public officials should go for. i just think that in reality, the situation is completely different. the reality is that elected officials rarely stand up for anything if it damages their chance of getting re-elected. in fact, when voting yesterday, i couldn't find a single candidate who had even a slight chance of winning that i thought would stand up for anything if it was unpopular. sad, really. i mean maybe i'm jaded, but when i haven't seen a politician with the kind of integrity you are talking about in a long time. at least not on the national level.
i guess im just saying - hey, if everyone is out there selling people an image and pretending to be something they aren't, i'd rather vote for an atheist calling itself a bright than one calling itself a christian or muslim or jew. i would at least like the opportunity to possibly identify someone on an election ticket who shares some of my worldview as opposed to picking only between religious people of one kind or the other. especially if it means the bright candidate might bring some reasoning and a little higher level of integrity to the office. but that's just me.

 

[one_raven]

I hear you

 

[Light Travelling]

The key issue here is surely democracy (i.e. political leaders being elected by majority decision.) and the discontent of a minority group at not being electable. A far as I can see from the above there is a view held among many of a particular viewpoint (i.e atheism) that they somehow have a right to be elected and given public office even though the majority of electorate is not wanting this. Rather than accepting this as democratic process, it is suggested that the electrrate is ignorant and the whole process is wrong, simply because they are not electable. This attitude is surely a little arrogant?

In areas with high Christian population Christians tend to get voted in
In areas with high Muslim population Muslims tend to get voted in
In areas with high Atheist population Atheists tend to get voted in

This is democracy - You cant tell people they are stupid for voting for people with the same worldview as themselves, that’s exactly the reason that atheists want atheist politicians!! – but somehow when a Christian does this, its ignorance and when an atheist does this, its intelligence.

I live in England so my situation is different to the one you guys face in America. Religion is rarely mentioned in political campaigns, and as far as I am aware there is no significant block Christian vote. I honestly don’t know which of our politicians are religious or not (apart from Blair) and the only real mention religion seems to get during election campaigns is in relation to Islam and the war.

But, there are areas in the Britain with high muslin population, they often have Muslim politicians elected. Other areas have high Catholic population so Catholic politicians. This is democracy, you cant complain that is not fair and as an atheist you somehow have a greater right to be elected because you are more intelligent etc etc etc.. take this as exapmle;

edit

"Are you Christian" and they answer, "No, I am a Bright". He may as well have answered, "No, I'm not a Christian, I am an intelligent, thinking man".
.

By inference any christian is neither intelligent or thinking...

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. .

Maybe what makes atheists unelectable in certain areas is this arrogance and self conceit rather than lack of theistic belief. I know there are many religious with that same arrogance, but then I wouldn’t vote for them either.

An elected representative with integrity will vote in accordance with his Christian majority electorate, while, at the same time, openly acknowledge being an Atheist and personally disagreeing with the majority.
.

One Raven,

Whilst I agree with what you say here, I have to ask how this can be reconciled with atheists making better more moralistic decisions and taking religion out of politics.

If a politician with integrity simply carries out the will of his electorate, then an atheist politician would have to implement the religious policies that his electorate wanted…. And if this is the case one has to ask what the point of having an atheist politician would be? Given that he would have to conduct himself in the same way as a Christian politician or choose to not carry out the wishes of his electorate therefore making a mockery of democracy.. assuming he was elected in a christian majority area of course.

 

[lixluke]

Certain religions such as Christianity intentionally witness their beliefs to other people. There is nothing wrong with professing your beliefs to convince others to do the same. This is what many discussions and debates are about, religious or otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with professing nonreligion to others. Convincing others that there is no such thing as religion. That religion is all fictional fantasy mythology. However, irrational people do the following:

1. FIRST: Disdain religion for professing/imposing their beliefs.

2. SECOND: Profess/impose the belief that belief that professing/imposing beliefs are wrong while at the same time professing/imposing the belief that religion is fiction.

3. THIRD: Irrationally convince yourself that youa re not professing/imposing beliefs becuase doing so is just so wrong. You could never be as fanatical as those religious zealots.

4. FOURTH. Join an organization of fanatics that abide by the above 3.


The brights:
1. Are a movement to convince others that religion is fiction/fantasy.

2. Accomplish this by taking active action to foster a less religious society. Spread the understanding that religious connotations are incorporated into too many aspects of society. This is wrong, and should be toned down.

3. Overzealous fanatics.

 

[Light Travelling]

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.

This is exactly the eye for an eye mentality that atheists hold up as wrong from theistic religion. If atheists want to take the moral high ground they really have to do a little better than this. This may be a minority view amongst the philosophers and scientists on this forum, but amongst the atheists in the public at large it is unfortunately a very prevalent view.


Here are some more examples from other threads;

if people dont want their believes ridiculed. they should not have such ridiculous believes.
it is extremely hard to not appear condescending in the face of such believes, especially when the beliefs are so laughable.

Here with such conviction that religious view deserve to be ridiculed… solely because this person finds them ridiculus. Which is pure fundamentalism.

Obviously there are the fundies and the moderates, but the moderates are just lazy, and I have been far less impressed by their skewed logic and excuses rather than the fundies straight down the line honesty.

And here someone prefers the fundies…who exhibit all that is bad in religion…… why, because it justifies this atheists hatred.


If people had the intelligence they profess, they would have the intelligence to see both viewpoints, not just their own . If people want to claim moral high ground they really have to act more responsibly than the above and get away from the childlike mentality that if religious people act incorrectly then atheists are justified in acting the same way in return i.e. if they hate us we can hate them back. Two wrongs will never make a right

And if atheists want to be elected in areas of majority theism, then they really have show more respect to other human beings and their beliefs than this.

 

[charles cure]

The key issue here is surely democracy (i.e. political leaders being elected by majority decision.) and the discontent of a minority group at not being electable. A far as I can see from the above there is a view held among many of a particular viewpoint (i.e atheism) that they somehow have a right to be elected and given public office even though the majority of electorate is not wanting this. Rather than accepting this as democratic process, it is suggested that the electrrate is ignorant and the whole process is wrong, simply because they are not electable. This attitude is surely a little arrogant?

maybe you misunderstand the issue. arrogance doesn't really come into play as far as i see it. the entire thing is about selling a concept in such a way that people can see it for the attractive thing that it is. the shame about atheism and other forms of non-belief or non-affiliation with religion is the way that religious people have used negative propaganda to make these things seem amoral and detrimental to society. you may see an open atheist as unelectable, but i disagree. i think that if people truly understood the concept, then an atheist would be a perfectly electable candidate, indeed a preferrable one. however, we all know that this is not the case. the religious right spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year making sure people believe that they have a monopoly on wholesomeness, morals, family values...etc. atheists, et al. lack any kind of cohesive organization or movement to identify with, and thus are scattered about and acting as individuals instead of coming together under a particular banner and spending huge amounts of money to expose the flaw and fraud and immorality of the religious in kind. its not that atheist candidates are unelectable at face value, its that religious people hear the word Atheist and tune out their entire message because they have a 2,000 year old propoganda machine working against them. what i was saying is that the "brights movement" represents someone's idea of a way to bring these people together so that they can push back a little and explain themselves and then attempt to get elected on a level playing field instead of one that heavily favors their opponents.

This is democracy - You cant tell people they are stupid for voting for people with the same worldview as themselves, that’s exactly the reason that atheists want atheist politicians!! – but somehow when a Christian does this, its ignorance and when an atheist does this, its intelligence.

The only problem with that statement is that there actually is a difference between a stupid and destructive worldview that is predicated on fear and misunderstanding of the unknown, and one that attempts to define reality in tangible, practical ways without regard for the wants or desires ofthe supernatural. A vote for ignorance is a vote for ignorance no matter who casts it, the relative worth of the vote depends on who you cast it for and how they act. if you elect a stupid christian candidate that helps lead the world down the path to violence, terror, and doom, just because you share a religious affiliation, then that's ignorant. if you vote for a christian candidate because you know they will think before they act and lay aside their personal pride and prejudice for the common good, then that vote is good. the same thing goes for atheists and their respective candidates. a shared religious affiliation does not always equal a totally shared worldview or a shared values system. that's what i think a lot of religious people don't understand when it comes to this kind of debate.

But, there are areas in the Britain with high muslin population, they often have Muslim politicians elected. Other areas have high Catholic population so Catholic politicians. This is democracy, you cant complain that is not fair and as an atheist you somehow have a greater right to be elected because you are more intelligent etc etc etc

where did anyone mention a right to get elected? an election is a contest. as far as i can see the point of the bright movement is that atheists should do what they can to showcase how their ideas appeal to all people, in order to advance an agenda that they feel will be beneficial to all. that pretty much sums up most political movements, parties, etc. people with a particular ideology gether together and attempt to put their ideas in a framework that will translate into positive results for their group, city, state, or nation. its pretty simple. sure there's always talk of "candidate A from Party A has a foolish idea about what to do about tax reform" or whatever, but that's political gamesmanship, and like it or not, in that kind of a forum people often claim to be more intelligent or capable than their opposition. whether they actually are or not is a pointless distinction if they can't get into office and prove it because of one negative descriptive word.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

1. Do you believe the label "Bright" is worthwhile?
2. Do you believe the label "Bright" is pointless?

really speaking the word atheist should not exist

a belief in something should not result in a word for non belief in that thing

example:

I don't believe in ghosts but I am not an 'exghosty'

I don't believe in alien abductions but I am not an 'exalieny'

I don't need to express my non belief as it is belief that requires the action not the non existance of that belief.

 

[SkinWalker]

2. SECOND: Profess/impose the belief that belief that professing/imposing beliefs are wrong while at the same time professing/imposing the belief that religion is fiction.

But does the professor/imposer of the first party who believes that professing/imposing his beliefs really believe that by professing/imposing his belief will convince the party of the second part that doesn't profess/impose beliefs that are contrary to the beliefs that are being professed/imposed by the professor/imposer of the first party will convince the professor/imposer of the second party?

I'm just asking. And it makes more sense if you read that in the voice of Jack Sparrow.

 

[Roman]

I prefer the terms infidel or blasphemer.

 

[SkinWalker]

I don't particularly like the name ("brights"), but I agree with the definition:

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

In fact, I don't see how any reasoned person could have an objection to it. These points are part of the definition of freethinker, which is a more apt term in my opinion.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yeah, I am not a big fan of the name either. Because people tend to polarize meaning, it tends to produce the interpretation that anyone whom is not Bright is Dim (which in most Enlgish-speaking socieities means you're stupid).

 

[Light Travelling]

maybe you misunderstand the issue. arrogance doesn't really come into play as far as i see it. .

I am sure there is no intentional arrogance, and there is none as far as you can see. But from the Christians on ‘the otherside of the fence’ it does come across as arrogance..

the shame about atheism and other forms of non-belief or non-affiliation with religion is the way that religious people have used negative propaganda to make these things seem amoral and detrimental to society. .

What you have to understand though, is that whilst there are many atheists like yourself, who are educated and intelligent and probably have relatively high morals. There is another type of atheist who is not like this. The majority of people involved in petty crime, in drugs, in muggings etc are not by and large religious. The guys drinking in bars all night and fighting in the street afterwards are generally not especially religious. There is a part in every city that you don’t go in late at night.. now the guys there that will carjack you take your wallet and beat you, are generally not Buddhists, nor have they just stepped out of the local church. In England most city centre at weekend nights are full of young people drunk and fighting – not nice places to be a night. These young people are generally not religious..

Now I will do you guys a favour and call these people areligious rather than atheist, because they have probably never given it enough thought to be atheist. BUT , you still have to acknowledge these people exist and in numbers. This is the fear Christians have of atheists, they falsely assume all atheists will be like this.


I think the negative connotations of atheism will go away when the antisocial behaviour of the areligious is seen to present less of a threat.

Yes – I know there are many threats form religious fanatics as well, and I will say that in the same way, that the negative connotations of religion will only go way once this fanaticism is seen to present less of a threat.

Until then I guess we are stuck with this stalemate and distrust..

you may see an open atheist as unelectable, but i disagree. i think that if people truly understood the concept, then an atheist would be a perfectly electable candidate, indeed a preferrable one. .

I personally do not see an atheist as un electable. I am happy to have an atheist politician, and I am sure I have voted for a few without considering it. I am just trying to explain why Christians and muslims may not find atheist politician electable.

the religious right spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year making sure people believe that they have a monopoly on wholesomeness, morals, family values...etc. atheists, et al. .

But how many of these values do you actually disagree with? And should this not be dealt with on an issue by issue basis rather buying in to a straight Christian vs atheist divide?

then attempt to get elected on a level playing field instead of one that heavily favors their opponents. .

Sorry, democracy again… the playing field only favours their opponents so long as there are more right wing Christians than moderates and atheists. If the balance of numbers swings in favours moderates and atheists then the playing field will be level. I do not think ‘brights’ is the mechanism to achieve this though.

. if you elect a stupid christian candidate that helps lead the world down the path to violence.

Well sure there are stupid Christians as there are stupid atheists, but it is not right to label all those of a theistic persuasion as stupid. It does nothing to help your cause either

 

[charles cure]

What you have to understand though, is that whilst there are many atheists like yourself, who are educated and intelligent and probably have relatively high morals. There is another type of atheist who is not like this. The majority of people involved in petty crime, in drugs, in muggings etc are not by and large religious. The guys drinking in bars all night and fighting in the street afterwards are generally not especially religious. There is a part in every city that you don’t go in late at night.. now the guys there that will carjack you take your wallet and beat you, are generally not Buddhists, nor have they just stepped out of the local church. In England most city centre at weekend nights are full of young people drunk and fighting – not nice places to be a night. These young people are generally not religious..

you are full of shit. you're telling me there's no devout irish catholics in barfights? no christian soldiers? no alcoholic churchgoers (or priests for that matter)? no mafia bosses that believe in god? the people you are talking about might be atheists to you because you think they don't follow the ways of god, but i guarantee you that most of them consider themselves somehow religious. this argument strays far from the point anyway, as i'm sure you see the inherent problems with painting all people in a particular group with the same brush.

But how many of these values do you actually disagree with? And should this not be dealt with on an issue by issue basis rather buying in to a straight Christian vs atheist divide?

if atheists didnt disagree with religious values, why would they be atheists? of course i agree with basic values like murder is bad, theft is bad...etc. but those aren't even issues in society today. i do however disagree with the faulty reasoning that underpins religious values and that eventually trasnlates into religious people holding insane views that impede human progress because of it. the issue is that if you don't have a real and tangible reason for what you think, you eventually end up having to sacrifice some genuinly good things in order to maintain your principles without becoming a total hypocrite. thats how the religious values system works. example - life begins at conception, so people shouldn't have abortions. well, if life begins at conception then we also can't have embryos being used for stem cell research that could potentially help save the lives of millions of people, because that's just as wrong as abortion. if you just let go of the "god says that life begins at conception" idea, then a lot more is possible. religion is a way of absolutes, and that's what ruins it as a life philosophy.

Sorry, democracy again… the playing field only favours their opponents so long as there are more right wing Christians than moderates and atheists. If the balance of numbers swings in favours moderates and atheists then the playing field will be level. I do not think ‘brights’ is the mechanism to achieve this though.

wow you're pretty out of touch with the reality of modern democracy huh? the people with the most money and the biggest money making organizations on their side usually win. that's pretty much how it works. it has a lot less to do with sheer numbers than you think, and everything to do with selling an image. that's what the people attempting to advance the "bright" idea understand. you level the playing field by organizing, marketing, and funding your candidates better than the other side. its that simple, the people will eat it up if you feed it to them right.

Well sure there are stupid Christians as there are stupid atheists, but it is not right to label all those of a theistic persuasion as stupid. It does nothing to help your cause either

i dont really understand this, i didn't call anyone stupid.

 

[charles cure]

really speaking the word atheist should not exist

a belief in something should not result in a word for non belief in that thing

example:

I don't believe in ghosts but I am not an 'exghosty'

I don't believe in alien abductions but I am not an 'exalieny'

I don't need to express my non belief as it is belief that requires the action not the non existance of that belief.

there is a word for those things though, people who don't believe in them are called skeptics. words develop out of necessity, obviously at some point there became a need to describe someone without belief in religion in a more concise way than saying "that person is not affiliated with any church, nor do they accept that god is real." i suppose you could always start a campaign to get the Oxford English dictionary to stop including atheist though.

 

[John99]

This is incredible, why does there have to be a label, a movement? this is the first step towards loss of credibility.