GunnerJ

Actually, the REAL problem with "menat" is that it's too close to "mentos," implying that people who are not metaphysical/methodological naturalists are less minty fresh than those who are.

girlwriter

Well taken, Shake,
but I actually *read* the Dune series, (and saw the movie,) and I didn't remember that. Most people wouldn't draw the connection. I guess I'll stick to the aforementioned existing terms just in case though.

And I definately do not want to go around implying that I'm more minty-fresh than other people. That's just wrong.

Farren

LOL!

Kevin Dorner

Tiny blurb about Brights in today's Globe and Mail (Canadian national newspaper.)

Scroll to the bottom to see it. It appeared on the last page of the front section. It's the first mention I've seen of it in a daily since the Guardian article.

(sent to the Wire)

viscousmemories

That's so excellent! That little blurb, with its complete misunderstanding of the meaning and intent of the Bright(tm) term, illustrates another glaring failure of the word. That is: If people are so stupid they need a simple, easy to pronounce word to understand a school of thought, how in the hell are you going to explain to them that a Bright(tm) is really a metaphysical naturalist?

You're not. And as a result, they'll latch on to the easiest word in your description (in this case "atheist") and report that a Bright(tm) is really an atheist. I can only hope the ensuing confusion eventually leads to the death of the movement.

Beautiful. Thanks Globe and Mail.

vm

Baloo

Yeah, yeah, menat sounds like: "men at", with a bit of stretching: "mentos", and my personal favorite, "m' gnat" (as in "Egad's! M' gnat got loose!"). Similar objections apply to "metist" - although one more pragmatic objection that occured to me was that "metist" would be used in a context where it's phoenetic similarity to "methodist" could be a slight problem.

I realize that the humorous nature of the objections to the terms are not so much indicative of problems with the terms "menat" or "metist", but more aptly reflect the silly nature the overall subject has had since it's inception (which I blame on the silly-soundingness of "bright" and "uniter", to name a couple). So ridiculous has the subject gotten, I wonder whether reinforcing my perspective will be a complete waste of time...

Then again, this is II, so your god-damned right I'm going to reinforce my perspective.

Basically, I just wish there was a way I could tell people I was a metaphysical naturalist in less than 9 syllables, and without sounding to a layperson like a self-important person who needs long, fancy-shmancy philosophical mumbo-jumbo terms to describe myself. Naturalist and materialist are okay, but are still a bit multi-syllabolic, and are not precise enough for my liking. Atheist describes the role of god-beliefs in my worldview, but it stops there. Agnostic doesn't even do that. Blasphemer, heretic, and infidel are swell, but one must admit that they bring a rather combative "I'm against YOUR beliefs" connotation, when used in day-to-day conversation with strangers; they do not soundly convey what I do believe - only that what I believe is contradictory to the beliefs of others (with a not-so-subtle implication that I do not hold much respect for said beliefs).

So, to come full circle, are there any objections against "bright" which still hold against "menat" or "metist", at least to the extent that one wouldn't feel sick to one's stomach every time one saw a big-name metaphysical naturalist endorsing the term?

Baloo

I might add that I also realize the more exposure the "bright" term gets, the more moot alternatives become. The "bright" movement will flop, and if it flops with enough publicity, nobody in their right minds will risk a second try (the mere attempt to "try again" will be the source of a good deal of ridicule to start with).

So, I guess the whole point is that when someone has a bright idea like this, they really ought to run it by me first.

EDITTED: Had to add a pun.

Mediancat

I would object to metist on the grounds that I'm a vegetarian.

Rob aka Mediancat
(and yes, I'm kidding)

AscensionMaster

Bright makes me think of light...which leads to bright light...which then leads to gremlin...then I have this sudden urge to go tear up a movie theater.

Nope, won't work. Too destructive.

emotional

I can hardly believe how a rational person like Richard Dawkins stands to promote such an initiative. Surely, if he has been thinking the issue over, he must realise that the new appellation does more harm than help?

Look at Matt Slick's stereotyping at CARM:

The term "bright" for atheists can only serve to strengthen that conviction. As so many people have said here already, "bright" for a group implies "not bright" for all others (much as "the chosen" for Jews means Gentiles are not chosen).

The term "bright" will thus backfire upon its goal of relieving the stereotypes of atheists. It will no more succeed than "gay" has succeeded in tearing up the stereotype of homosexuals in fundamentalists' eyes. A fundie does not see a "gay" as any less harmful, evil etc than a "homosexual", so if they already have the stereotype that an atheist is harmful and evil they will transfer the stereotype onto the term "bright" once it catches on.

Fundies will never change. It is best, therefore, to dispense with such term-mongering and instead to work on the widening of the wall of separation between church and state.