phaedrus

Fair enough ......

Doesnt contradict...its basically an extension. ...since you havent anyhow ignored the term/movement as of now.....

Good then... you are not a bright...you are an atheist/humanist/secularist ro whatever.....lets see what happens to the movement in the real world, where some people who are concerned about their rights have tried to do something....whether it will be successful or not...time will tell.

jp

copernicus

I agree, Phaedrus. And there is no reason why people who object to the label "Bright" as pretentious can't simply refer to the movement as "brightism" (like theism, atheism, secularism, humanism) and its adherents as "brightists". Personally, I don't support the idea of internecine warfare. If you think that "Bright" is a stupid idea, an even stupider idea is to attack other nontheists for using such a label. Those who proposed the label did not express contempt for people who disagreed with them, and there is no reason for them to be treated with contempt.

kwigibo

I have contempt for the term because I don't disagree with trying to increase the political relevance of the non-religious, and I have no faith in the proposed term doing anything to advance that cause. Just because someone doesn't attack me doesn't mean I should ignore any ill-advised idea they have, especially when that idea is likely to effect my political life.

This will not unite anyone, it will divide people even more, as we can see happening in this thread. Why persist in hurting your own cause?

JGL53

Certainly we should never attack a person, but only the person's ideas with which we disagree. The people who have proposed the 'Bright' idea are not bad people, they just came up with a bad (in my opinion) idea.

If I said in any of my posts that I thought the people who like the 'Bright' idea are stupid, then I apologise. I would have obviously misspoke.

I think the IDEA of calling oneself a Bright is stupid (and obviously I have explained in detail exactly why I think so). I have contempt for the idea, but not for the people who promote it. I actually admire some of the people involved (e.g. Dennett, Dawkins).

Fair enough?

((As for 'internectine warfare', check out the threads in these forums re atheism vs. agnosticism vs. non-theism, weak atheism vs. strong atheism, the proper definition of agnosticsm and/or atheism. We don't need no stinking 'Bright' controversy, amigos. We haven't even settled the 'an atheist is what??' debate - and apparently never will.))

copernicus

I have no problem with this kind of rhetoric. Now let's try to talk about the subject in a less emotional way. There are pros and cons to the idea. I happen to agree with critics that "Bright" sounds pretentious. What about my suggestion of a compromise--that those who object to pretentiousness just refer to "Brights" as "brightists" and "the Bright movement" as "brightism"? Does that help matters, or are you so opposed to the idea that you can't even find room for compromise? After all, you do respect some of the people who have promoted the idea, and you can't accuse them of cowardice in putting forth the proposal.

I still have reservations. Why "contempt"? What is so contemptible about the idea? As phaedrus said, nobody is forcing you to call yourself a "Bright". What is wrong with saying that you don't like the label, but you like what they are trying to accomplish? Or do you oppose that, as well? No one will think the less of you if you opt not to accept that label. You can call yourself whatever you like, but let's try to get beyond labels and talk about the worthiness of the effort. Is there a legitimate issue here, and is it worth our effort to try to resolve it? Do you believe that nontheists should be satisfied with their social status? Do you believe that they are treated fairly by society? If so, then we should oppose brightism. If not, then maybe there is a better way to promote the cause. Or is it just sufficient to carry on as we have been?

And many of those debates are over language--what labels mean and who we should call by such labels. I think that the real purpose of these discussion groups is for each of us to clarify our own opinions first. Secondarily, we try to influence others to accept those opinions.

phaedrus

Michael Rea ( philosopher at University of Notre Dame) posted a reply to Dennett’s piece to which Dennett replied.

The exchange can be found here including a counter-reply from Rea, dennett seems to have scored as far as this conversation goes.

Acutally how much support is there for this notion on the ground? From the mails i got from my friends in the US it looks like there is support, especially in the universities.

jp

JGL53

Thanks very much for posting this link. With the subsequent links to two lists of email debates, there's quite a lot to read, but I'm slowing wading my way through it all.

Unfortunately, Michael Rea and many others make very good arguments against the (as I shall refer to it from now on) not-so-Bright idea. The fact that I, an atheist, am agreeing with a catholic (?) against a famous atheist is not good - but such is life.

I now understand that Dennett's, et al's main concern is to bring all non-atheists into a correct understanding that atheists are not (fill in the blank with something immoral/amoral) - at least, no more or no less than the average theist - and that there's no demonstrably good reason to automatically cast us into outer darkness, just unreasoned prejudice. Atheists should be judged as individuals, as should theists.

Fighting the negative (and false) sterotypes pushed by those hostile to atheism is something we can all do, should do, and for the most part, do do. If there is a new label that can possibly help in this effort, "Bright' damn sure is not it. If it were, I would imagine maybe a ninety per cent acceptance rate - instead of large numbers of atheists who actively HATE it.

The not-so-Bright idea sucks major ass juice.
Know it. Accept it. Live it.

Vibr8gKiwi

I haven't been on infidels.org in ages, but the "bright" idea brought me back to see what's the thinking here about it is. The fact that so many active atheists on here seem to hate the term is probably a good sign. Being a non-conformist is practically built in for a lot of people on here.

However regardless of the bitching on here, this is going to be big and it's going to be positive. It's going to open doors that don't even exist for us today. I haven't been as excited about a freethought idea in ages. I can actually see freethinkers having an actual political and social identity in the near future. I'm tired of being invisible, and soon I won't be anymore.

Those of you who enjoy being the freak in the corner, or otherwise like being a powerless invisible loser, you can bitch all you want, but this idea is going to move with you or without you.

--Vibr8gKiwi (a Bright)

Principia

Here's a sampling of how the "Bright" movement will be taken by critics of atheism:

http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_to...-t-000543.html
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_to...-t-000518.html
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_to...-t-000559.html
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_to...-t-000550.html

This is for any of you interested in labelling yourself as a Bright.

JGL53

Goddam Motherfucker Shit - it's worst than I had thought!

- Though I am fairly amused by the acronym now being used for Dawkins and Dennett - D&D (get it?)