copernicus

Well, the Brights also make it clear that there aren't any "elders", so to speak, but you ignored that message. I suspect that most of the public will treat the name as a euphemism for atheism and agnosticism, which is what it is. Since the idea is to characterize the movement in positive terms, self-described members are supposed to hold a "naturalistic worldview", which is another way of saying that they reject supernaturalism. Since religion is based on belief in the supernatural, that effectively rules out theists as Brights. There may be atheists and agnostics who believe in the supernatural, but they are really hard to find. To the extent that such nontheists exist, they would not be considered "Brights".

I think that you are being way too nitpicking about this. It isn't a political party, and nobody is asking for money to organize a lobbying campaign yet. It is just an attempt to characterize the community of religious skeptics in a more positive way. The purpose is to gain more visibility and respect from the public at large. In America, Brights are going to be more sharply defined, because there is a fairly low-level, but widespread campaign of hatred directed at religious skeptics. A lot of religious people have misconceptions about religious skepticism, and something ought to be done to correct those misconceptions.

viscousmemories

Yes, I did ignore that message. I grew up in a fundamentalist christian cult with 2000 local members and “sister communities” all over the world, and they too made it clear that there were no “elders”, so to speak. Guess what? They were full of shit. They simply avoided using terminology that they knew would immediately raise red flags for anyone with half a brain. But despite their evasive technique, there were very obvious and well-known leaders of the community. The founders of the Brights™ movement have very clear objectives, and in creating that website and promoting their message, they are leading the way toward those objectives. IMO there’s not much more than a semantic difference between the originator and leader of a movement and an “elder”.
Now you're ignoring their message. The Brights™ make it quite clear that they don’t intend for the word to be used as a “euphemism” for anything. This information is on the front page of their website, which I have had the unfortunate experience of visiting about 10 times a day during the few weeks I’ve been trying to understand and debate this issue. So I’m not really sure what point you’re making by reiterating it now. The fact is that it was never the intention of the Brights™ founders or the early adopters (Dawkins, Randi, Shermer, et al.) to use Bright™ as a replacement for “atheist”. So all Brights™ are, by their own defintion, atheists. That doesn’t mean you can use the words interchangeably.
A couple of people in California decided to create a new word that attempts to encapsulate my worldview and are working overtime trying to gain public acceptance for it. I believe I have every right to nitpick. At any rate, yes, on that particular issue (though I don’t really think it’s a key one to the debate) it’s the “yet” that bothers me.
Well there are two discussions here, then. 1. Does the “community of religious skeptics” need a PR facelift? And 2. Is this the most effective way to go about it. Personally, I think the image that society at large has of non-believers could use some improvement. I also think this method is not only ineffective, but counterproductive. In my opinion, just a couple of better approaches would be to A. Reclaim one of the words already used to disparage us. Like “infidel”, for example. (Like homosexuals did with the word “gay”, since the Brights™ like to talk about that so much) Or B. Get active in your community and be vocal about your non-belief.

vm

GunnerJ

While they may say this, I have some strong doubts that they actually mean it. From their FAQ:

If "Bright" isn't a euphamism, then I truly must not understand the definition of the word.

Shake

Oh well ...

The comments from Rush Windbag at the link above:Yes, Rush, there is a website, but I can see from your comments you haven't taken the time to check it out. Rush here uses the big lie tactic to try to rally opposition to this movement. I believe Rush has to be a somewhat intelligent guy (much as I don't like him), but maybe he's just lazy. If he'd been to the site among the first things he'd have seen would be that it's not about thinking they're smarter than others. He further doesn't get the fact that it's supposed to be an umbrella term, covering more than just atheists.

Well, all this has been well covered, both on the site and in the seven (so far) pages of this thread. Please somebody put this thread out of its misery!

copernicus

Again, I think that you are overreacting. It is really unfair to equate a loosely-knit internet-based movement to raise the consciousness of the public about religious skepticism with a fundamentalist cult. However, you are plainly angry about your religious experience, and you can't help but see a similarity here. I feel quite differently about it. Nobody is telling you that you have to call yourself a "Bright", but whether or not the label sticks to people like you and me will be decided by the public at large. There are people of color who don't like being called "African American", and there are homosexuals who object to being called "gay". My own reaction to the term "Bright" is that I find it an awkward experience to accept it. As a linguist, I am curious as to whether it will stick.

I am using the term "euphemism" in a linguistic sense, and the authors of the web page clearly don't understand the nature of euphemism. They explicitly adopt "bright" on analogy with "gay", and "gay" is a classic euphemistic replacement for "homosexual". I don't actually agree with everything that the authors claim or predict. They really aren't fully in control of linguistic judgments that the community at large makes. We all constantly modify our linguistic judgments. I had real problems getting used to the term "African American", but I have no real problem with it now. The authors do refer to their use of the word as a "neologism", but that is an incorrect use of the term. Neologisms are coined words, and they are attempting to co-opt an existing word, not create a new word out of whole cloth.

Quite correct. Nevertheless, the public at large can do whatever it pleases with linguistic usage. It will, regardless of our wishes. It is interesting that Brights are a de facto religious denomination. Unlike Gays, Jews, and African Americans, your beliefs define your membership in the community, not your upbringing, sexual orientation, or race. Do Brights really form a subculture? I think that the Internet is making that happen. Nontheists do now feel more of a sense of social unity than they have in the past.

First of all, it was more than a "couple of people in California" who decided the adopt the word, and it is no accident that you emphasize the location of California as the origin of the idea. California carries the stereotype of being a generator of kooky ideas. I was really surprised that they didn't ask for money, but they are going to have to sooner or later. Otherwise, they really will peter out. They talk about organizing, but you can't organize without financial resources.

Not gonna happen, VM. That's why euphemism exists as a linguistic mechanism. Words carry baggage, and you can't just "reclaim" them. They are prisoners of popular usage. Your reaction (and my own) against euphemism is a natural first blush. However, it is much harder to change the perception of existing usage than it is to start over with a fresh word usage.

Rusting Car Bumper

Matters how?

"Secular Humanist" The intentions of its adopters clearly arent the same as those who use it as a slur.

"Atheist" same here. How many times to we here the term used as a euphimism for an amoral person?

There is no reason to believe Bright will not fall under the same spell as these.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

The way to do that is to start acting like "equal citizens".

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

Why not *DO* things in a positive way instead of merely talking about them in a positive way?

And as I say that would be better had by *being* better people rather than simply calling ourselves better.

Yes but the "official" Bright proclaimations become what they attempt to condemn. THat is they sayt he opposite of Bright is religious when in fact non-believers can be religious. In other words, they already alienate those non-believers that are not afraid of the word "religion."

DC

viscousmemories

I honestly didn’t mean to equate the Brights™ movement with the cult I grew up in except to illustrate that sometimes the leaders of movements intentionally obfuscate their leadership role to assuage anyone who has an innate repulsion to being a ‘follower’.
Despite the fact that your observation is accurate, it’s merely an experiment in psychoanalyzing my motivation for participating in this discussion and as such somewhat offensive and I doubt relevant to your rebuttal. I am aware of my bias, but I’d prefer it if you would stick to analyzing and responding to my arguments.
Honestly, my completely uneducated opinion is that it’s just too stupid sounding to stick. I too thought ‘African American’ sounded stupid at first (eh, who am I kidding? I still do) but at least it’s logical. Actually, the argument I’ve made all along is that we should be promoting “metaphysical naturalist” instead of “Bright™”, but the general response is that for it to be effective it has to be monosyllabic and retarded (okay so I added the retarded part). Of course using that reasoning, ‘Black’ works much better than ‘African American’, right?
I see your point and genuinely appreciate your perspective as a linguist, but since they state emphatically that their word isn’t meant to replace any other existing word, what does it mean to say they are using it euphemistically?
I think they’re starting to realize they did a poor job of defining this new term before they started trying to infect the world with it. From their site: A very minor point, but is that the case only in the field of linguistics? Because the first definition of neologism at dictionary.com is “a new word, expression, or usage”.
How can you say the Brights™ are a religious denomination when religion is defined as belief in the supernatural, in direct contrast to the claims of the Brights™?
This statement is a little confusing because it seems that you are using Bright™ and non-theist interchangeably again. Are you saying that the Internet is the reason for the stronger sense of social unity or this almost brand new Brights™ nonsense?
I think I get what you’re implying, but I really only said the idea was originated by a couple of people in California because it’s factual. The founders of the Bright™ campaign are Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, from Sacremento, California. Hey, I live in California too. I know not everyone here is a nutcase.
I doubt they’ll ever be in need of money from the masses. They seem to do quite well at convincing prominent people that their movement has value. I’m sure they could survive on Dawkins or JREF’s teat for quite a stretch.
Which still kinda begs the question (imo) is using a new word really going to change people’s perception of metaphysical naturalists, or is it just a matter of time before Brights™ are just as vilified as atheists or secular humanists now?

vm

GunnerJ

Ummm... "gay" "nigger?" Hello?