Secular Pinoy

Oh, so the bright strategy is to increase conciousness of their plight via memetic infections and influencing? Ah, so it isn't so bad after all.

copernicus

Not at all. That is the whole point. When someone challenges you with a loaded question, whether as an "atheist" or a "bright", that is how you respond. Brightism does not rob you of an opportunity to respond in just the way you propose.

I'm sorry, but you are losing me. You keep describing my position in terms that have nothing to do with what I have said or what you find on the Bright's web site.

You are wrong in your interpretation of these statements. All I was saying was that people who call themselves Brights will be subject to all kinds of smear tactics, including out-of-context quotes. Sometimes, people just get carried away and say things that they later regret. Christians do the same thing. The Bright movement is an attempt to put a positive message forth, and it is no less positive than that of theists. If you are going to criticize nontheists for every negative thing that they've ever said, then you should do the same for Christians. If nontheists were really treated equally by society, then their statements would be criticized on their own merits rather than on some stereotyped category. Just because a christian says something stupid, that doesn't mean that all christians are stupid.

No, I'm not advocating that we get "down and dirty" with hostile people. You are the one putting words in my mouth and building straw men to knock down. I have never said anything of the kind. What I have said is that you seem to have a double standard. You don't want to be associated with a movement where fellow members might say things that you disagree with or that embarrass you. What I am telling you is that you can join no political movement where you can escape that. You can't control what other people do who call themselves "Brights", "atheists", or "naturalists". All you can do is refuse to join any movement or be categorized in any way. I respect that, but it has nothing whatever to do with whether others of us should attempt to form some kind of politically active group.

I understand your point of view, but I disagree with it. The easiest way not to call attention to yourself is to avoid joining any groups or expressing any opinions that you fear might anger or disturb the "hostile environment". Your attitude is not unique in these kinds of movements. There is always a tug of war between those who don't want to make waves and those who think that some kind of action is necessary to bring about change. I happen to believe that our situation is dire enough that we need to do something different. Maybe we will be better off if we just ignore the problem. It might go away over time.

I think that you have a real problem with people like Dawkins and Dennett. You don't like their activism. I have just the opposite feeling. I respect their point of view, and I have no problem at all associating myself with such people. I may occasionally wince at some of their statements, because they sometimes go overboard in their enthusiasm. They are not nearly so bad as Madalyn Murray O'Hair was, but they are going to attract mud and brickbats for their outspokenness. I admire their courage, and I also give them some leeway to make mistakes. You are less inclined to be generous.

The Brights did not choose them. They are prominent naturalists, and they signed on. If it weren't for people like them, I would treat the movement a lot less seriously.

You seem unable to read what I say without jumping to wild conclusions. I was talking about nontheists "signing on", not theists. You are the one heaping anti-religious overtones on the rhetoric. I expect that from theists. I don't expect it from nontheists. Then again, your extreme reaction against the message is not unprecedented. There are women who agree with the goals of feminism, but abhor the movement. There are also African Americans who rail against affirmative action for racial minorities, even though they themselves could not have advanced without it (Justice Thomas coming to mind here).

I would like to believe that you do "disagree vigorously with all Internet crackpot theists". I don't know why you wouldn't. In any case, I am not going to accuse you of being an atheist "oreo cookie", so to speak. I am only asking you to consider the possibility that you are reacting too strongly to the Bright movement. Personally, I have my reservations about it. But it is the only game in town, right now.

I agree with you about the patience. We also have to have patience with others who belong to our minority. I certainly have no illusions that the Bright movement is going to achieve all its goals or be the last of its kind. However, it is a new opportunity to advance the cause, so I'm willing to pitch in. I have yet to see any coherent alternatives proposed by its nontheist critics.

The 83% figure came from the web site that you cited. Look it up, if you don't believe me. You missed my point. Theists naturally believe in supernatural explanations, and most of them also believe in evolution. What most really don't understand is the implication that these destructive bills have for science education. It is very easy to misinterpret (or over-interpret) poll statistics. People can answer the same question the same way for wildly different reasons. Just because someone says that they think creationism should be "taught alongside evolution" doesn't mean that they are creationists.

That's fine with me. It must surprise you that overt fundamentalists and creationists do so poorly in elections, when their politics are widely known. It must also surprise you that creationists often enter these races as "stealth candidates"--playing down their fundamentalist politics. That doesn't surprise me, since, unlike you, I consider fundamentalist christians to make up a minority of the population--roughly only 30 million by some estimates.

excreationist

When I think of the term "bright" and a group of people, it would usually be used to mean they're very intelligent. (Or possibly it could be like Jesus's "light to the world" metaphor)
I agree that it sounds pretensious and nerdy. i.e. negative things - even before people realize it refers to godless heathens.

I prefer terms like nontheist, nonbeliever, etc....
Naturalist and materialist would technically be ok, but many people might think naturalists are wildlife enthusiasts or something, and they might think materialists are obsessed with consumerism. Also, the public wouldn't know that those terms are nontheistic.

Maybe "godless" could be used. It is self-explanatory so the public would instantly understanding its meaning. It is kind of like "childless", "flawless", etc. If people claimed that word for themselves, then it would seem less of a negative word... like how gay people use the words "gay" and "queer" and maybe "fag" to some extent. Black people use "nigger" (or "nigga" or whatever) amongst themselves though they still are offended if white people use it, so it still is quite negative.

JGL53

"Godless." I like it. I like it alot. It's short, it's sweet and it says it all.

It is exactly analogous to 'gay" or "queer", unlike a suckegg term like 'Bright'. 'Godless' is a put-down term that we should embrace.

In a social sitiuation, for example, if religious comes up as a topic, when we say we are godless, those that aren't will be shocked and start yadda, yadda, yadda-ing about how horrible such a condition is. Then we have the opportunity to explain how it's a good thing, that we don't believe in imaginary beings like goblins and ghosties and gods and things that go bump in the night, that we live in the real world - maybe even go on to educate people about the meaning of the fancy-ass terms like metaphysical naturalist or philosophical materialism, so there won't be any confusion with nudism or consumerism.

Yep, that's the way to go. I'm not a pretentiopus ass- uh, excuse me, a "Bright", I'm a down to earth member of the Godless.

'Bright' bites. Godlessness RULES!

excreationist

According to the Brights' Network, James Randi supports it, yet those on his messageboard don't....

Thread 1 Thread 2

copernicus

Excreationist, there is nothing at all wrong with "godless", not to mention "nonbeliever", "skeptic", "atheist", and so on. The point of "bright", however, is to represent a general term for people who believe that natural explanations are sufficient to explain natural phenomena. One can be "godless" and still believe in magic. For example, wiccans, satanists, and new-age pagans often refer to themselves as "godless". The term is quite easily taken by religious people as an affront--just the objection that many people seem to have to "bright".

excreationist

copernicus:
I thought a lot of the main reason for "bright" was to speak out against the use of God in politics. If someone says they are godless then it is self-explanatory that they don't like phrases like "one nation under God". I think as far as politics goes, it is irrelevant whether they believe in magic or not. If you need a term that describes people that don't believe in the supernatural - what about "naturalist"? It doesn't sound as pretentious as "bright", and it has an established meaning. It sounds positive too I think. ("Bright" is supposed to sound cheery but when referring to people I think the intellectual aspect of the word would tend to be thought of)

copernicus

excreationist, nothing is wrong with the term "naturalist", in principle, although it. Nor is there anything wrong with the myriad of other terms that exist to describe various flavors of nontheists. The purpose of brightism is not to replace those other terms, nor is it to just be a platform for American obsessions about church-state separation in the Bill of Rights. The whole point is to create a coherent community of nonbelievers on the basis of what they positively believe in--natural explanations for natural phenomena. The term "Brights" is intended as an umbrella term for agnostics, atheists, and freethinkers. It is not expected that they will all agree on every issue--e.g. that we must eliminate the word "God" on our money. The ideal is that we be perceived as a politically important group in society and be given equal status with others. The irony is that groups which are far less numerous often command more respect and political power, simply because they are perceived as a coherent subculture. There is no reason why we should be considered socially illegitimate by the majority, yet we are. Adopting a term like "Bright" will certainly not change our status overnight, but doing nothing is likely to have even less of an impact.

excreationist

copernicus:
Doing nothing isn't the only remaining alternative. Terms besides "bright" could be promoted instead.

Then the term "naturalist" could be used, and as you said, there is nothing wrong with that term in principle. "Naturalist" could be promoted. So there could be "naturalism" rather than "brightism" - after all, it doesn't seem prententious like "bright" does, as many have said here, and on Randi's messageboard.

I think it isn't a good idea to choose a term which makes us seem exceptionally important - e.g. "bright". It implies that others are dim (in intelligence or cheeriness or something). Terms like "naturalist" don't have any implications as far as status goes. It only implies that others aren't naturalists - they're supernaturalists(?). I think using the term "bright" will bring a lot of resentment from others. e.g. from the Randi board:
The author probably is a Christian - and he uses the term "bright" to criticize atheists... he (and MANY others - see the Randi threads and this one) perceive the term as boasting... Christian preachers would probably like to use it as evidence that atheists are self-centered and deluded or something (because they believe atheists/agnostics are all "bright")

copernicus

True, but this one has the "juice" from high-profile supporters. The others don't. There seems to be no consensus on what a good alternative would be.

What I like about "naturalist" is that it has a positive connotation. What I dislike is that most people seem to use the word to describe those who study biological nature. Worse yet, the word doesn't stir the emotions. The fact that "bright" sounds pretentious is both a curse and a blessing. The curse is its audacious pretension. It can turn people off quickly, albeit not as quickly as less pretentious terms like "atheist" or "infidel". The good thing is that it attracts attention and is a conversation starter. Calling yourself a "naturalist" is more likely to get a ho-hum response. I can sooner see a newscaster saying "And what do the Brights think about this?" rather than "And what do the Naturalists think about this?" It just doesn't have much of a ring to it, and that was very much a consideration when the brightists came up with their name.

I agree, but you should also know that reactions to terms of this sort can change rapidly. We are still in a period where it is new, and the reactions will settle down over time. There is no way to escape being bludgeoned, no matter what we call ourselves. People are used to having religion and supernaturalism go unchallenged, and it isn't just the pretentiousness of the name that evokes those reactions. They will attempt to smear any movement that casts doubt on religious claims. We really don't have anywhere to go but up in the eyes of the general public. And that is a real shame, because there are quite a few of us who feel that we are getting a raw deal.

That kind of shallow criticism is likely to get stale as time goes on. Ridicule can backfire, especially when it gets too shrill. You don't have to accept the criticism, either. The word doesn't just stand for smart people. It stands for illumination. We cast a light where supernaturalism had cast a shadow. That is what the movement is really about. Illumination vs. darkness. And religionists aren't going to like that message, either.