copernicus

Phaedrus, don't take the reaction here to be that of the nontheist community at large. I don't know whether "Bright" will catch on in the end, but I do think that it depends more on how theists react to the idea than nontheists. Many of us in this Internet community are quite used to calling ourselves "atheist" or "infidel", but we represent only a tiny minority of the people out there who struggle to keep from drowning in a sea of religious belief. Dennett, Dawkins, and others have attempted an experiment in raising the consciousness of mainstream society about the existence of nonbelievers in their midst. For some reason, this seems to have offended many of our more prominent faithless peers in this forum. It will be interesting to see whether the label "Bright" catches on with the mainstream. If not, perhaps modern religious skeptics are of a mind not to "rock the boat". Maybe they are more comfortable remaining in the closet. If so, it is for a future generation to raise the challenge.

Vomik

Hmm... maybe it is just me but doesn't this come off like a converting Christian? Maybe I'm misinterpreting this but he makes it sound like we're a virus who has infected your churches and we're here to take your children. I'm sure that will make everyone fall in love with us.

Also, I would have to say that comparing the homosexual rights movement to this is preposterous. I'm sure it's fun to pretend we're this horribly enslaved population but our plight compares nothing to the homosexual population's plight. When the word atheist is the most commonly used insult ( i.e. replacing the word gay or faggot) or when we are beaten/murdered and completely shunned from society then we can use that argument. Until then, let's leave them out of it?

phaedrus

bud

As it stands, these people are insulting the intelligence of both theists and the atheists they hope to enlist by lying about the nature of the term "bright".

As someone put it one of their blogs Dennett and the brights aren't claiming to have invented anything: they're merely proposing an etymological and political umbrella for a worldview that the second paragraph of Dennett's essay acknowledges dates back to Enlightenment

This is exactly what dennett tried to do in the original essay by trying to dilute the connotation The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view. (emphasis mine)

Copernicus

Exactly, by coining the term and writing the op-ed piece dennett, are trying to raise the awareness and offer hope to those who dont want to classify themselves as non-theists in public.

Coincidentally, dawkins has discussed the issue and analogies to "gay" in his guardian piece whose link i found at the same blog..the piece talks about how language can help for all the brights (albiet with the usual dawkins tone)

The future looks bright

jp

Cretinist

Bright is so gay.

Buddrow_Wilson

I know this already and I don't buy it. At best you could say its double entendre and if not then, in my mind, it shows an odd lack of intelligence and insight. There is no way that the general population is going to look at people calling themselves "brights" and not feel they are having a superior attitude of "I'm smarter than you because I don't subscribe to supernatural beliefs".

JGL53

One more time into the breach, dear friends:

If a gifted athelete went around saying "Hey, you know, I'm a gifted athelete!", most people would view him as a pretentious egotist, a.k.a. an asshole.

If a 'nerd' with an I.Q. of 180 went around saying "You know, I'm a genius. The rest of you are morons compared to me.", most people would view him also as a pretentious egotist - asshole.

Same thing with anyone who refers to himself, for whatever reason, as a 'Bright'.

At present, theists have about seventeen and a half dozen stereotyped views of atheists that they frequently spew out in an attempt to discredit us, e.g., atheists are immoral (or amoral), satanists, witches, communists, nazis, crazed anarchists, self-centered egotists and narcissists (they are their own god), illogical, irrational, mindless hedonists, hate-filled, spiteful, in denial, insane, stupid, ignorant, really believe in g. but are just rebelling against g., etc., etc., etc.

So, let's remove all doubt about atheists being self-centered pretentious assholes and provide theists with ipso facto proof of such by calling ourselves 'Brights'.

The more I examine and think about this issue and all the ramifications, the more ironic the matter becomes in my eyes, i.e., Bright = Stupid.

((Why do the phrases "Kill it before it multiplies" and "There's a fungus amongus" keep coming into my mind?))

Rusting Car Bumper

Oh you so make the point with such wit.... :notworthy

DC

phaedrus

bud

I know this already and I don't buy it. At best you could say its double entendre and if not then, in my mind, it shows an odd lack of intelligence and insight. There is no way that the general population is going to look at people calling themselves "brights" and not feel they are having a superior attitude of "I'm smarter than you because I don't subscribe to supernatural beliefs".

Well glad that you know that particular phrase in the article. Whether you buy it or the general population accepts the term, which is time only will tell. Lets see how rhetoric works

JG

The more I examine and think about this issue and all the ramifications, the more ironic the matter becomes in my eyes, i.e., Bright = Stupid.

Good, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Since you think bright is stupid and will not work, why get hassled about it ? Just tell all the religious folk that these "brights" are idiots/nerds/narccisists or whichever term you would like to use and say that you are not part of them. It is that simple, dennett or whoever is not asking you to label yourself as "bright" because they started using that term to describe themselves, they think this is a proposal to create an etymological and political umbrella for a worldview. You and whoever has a problem with the term just has to ignore the movement (if it can be called that) and go about your lives. It's free world

jp

JGL53

Rather than 'hassled', I would say that I am moderately to severely annoyed.

Will do.

Which contradicts your advice above. So, am I to speak up to 'the religious folk" or just 'ignore' the issue'?

How about this? - I will 'ignore' the (not so bright) 'movement' for the most part, just as liberal/non-literalist christians generally ignore the antics/inane mouthings of the Jimmy Swaggarts and the Pat Robertsons. But occasionally the former do have to speak up regarding the latter to assert that 'those pretentious twits do not represent me".

Be assured that I, and those who agree with me (which seem to be the majority on the Net) will certainly speak up at appropriate times to make sure the general populace understands that "those pretentious twits do not represent me.".

Fair enough?

Hastur

Beautiful. :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy


I keep thinking if we were all black and Jesse Jackson one day says "Don't call us blacks...call us 'chocolates' instead." then proceeds to try to forward this idea of referring to African-Americans as "Chocolates" We'd all be standing around saying "chocolates?" WTF? That's stupid!

Wanna coin a new phrase to refer to us nonbelievers? Fine.
"Brights" sucks ass though, ok?
Try something else.