kwigibo

good idea, but do more people read the formal debate forums?

Rusting Car Bumper

Of course this would imply an approval of American Atheists which is actually worse that forwarding the term "Brights."

DC

Shadowy Man

This is the part I have a problem with. How would I be part of some "social group" of brights?

I certainly am more a part of the social group called astronomers, some of whom are not even atheists.

To imply that I am in the same "social group" as all of these people who call themselves "brights" is ridiculous at best. I am willing to bet that these people have vast differences in personality, personal beliefs, morals, interests, etc. Hardly an organized social group.

clark

None of the meme's primary supporters (Geisert, Futrell, Dawkins, Dennett, Shermer and presumably Randi) are going to debate the term because they see it as a meme, not a philosophical treatise. They're going to just use the term and see if it takes off. They're promoting the term at conventions, conferences, freethought summit meetings, local freethought/humanist groups and in op-ed pieces in The London Guardian and The New York Times, with mostly positive results. The term's opponents are limited to Internet discussion forums and e-mail lists. This is one reason I think the meme, which is only four months old, will take off.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

Rusting Car Bumper

Of course memetic theory is pseudoscience but that's another argument.

By the way, I think that internet discussion forums reach a far wider audience than a few hundred people at a conference.

DC

Vorkosigan

I'll draft something tomorrow. Today I have too much on my plate.

Michael

phaedrus

Was away for a while...here goes

JGL53 and others

It's not a matter of political correctness verses political incorrectness at all. Uh, do you really consider the label 'Sane" to be politically correct, as opposed to "Bright"?

If it is not, why the objection to the term? As i said, the if dennett used "!@#!$@!%@" instead of "bright", the whole piece would have been more likeable?

Now coming to the smug part....what is the problem there? Dont many people who call themselves non-theists, have somewhere inside their hearts/minds, this-chap-still-doesnt-get-it view inspite of the usual line we say "everyone is entitled to their belief systems, until they dont try to impose it on me". Why is one happy to proclaim that they are "atheists", but do not want to be a "bright" because it might hurt someone's feelings? Did homosexuals cringe when they were classified as "gay" because of the connotation?

Anyhows, i guess its debatable et al....but atleast dennett's piece has brought the whole issue of under-representation and the perils of moving away from secular notion of the state into the limelight.

jp

JGL53

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings. I hurt the feelings of theists all the time. It's about avoiding personal embarrassment. Calling oneself a 'Bright" is just plan tacky - like the nerd at school who refers to HIMSELF as 'gifted'.

And there is no analogy to the word 'gay'. It was pointed out by someone that 'gay' was a put-down word, like fag and queer, that homosexuals were called, so they embraced it and turned it around on their tormentors.

No theist that I know of has ever called an atheist a 'Bright', ergo, nothing to turn around. However, the word 'atheist' may properly be analogised with the word 'gay'.

This would be the only good thing to come out of this 'Bright' shit, i.e., encouraging a public debate on what atheism really implies, and encouraging more atheists to come out of the closet (there's another proper gay analogy) to defend themselves in various public forums, against both ignorant theists and the ridiculous term 'Bright'.

Gays certainly don't stand silent anymore when others try to stereotype them and unfairly discriminate against them, and neither do blacks, women, indigenous Americans, et al. So I agree that anything that would tend to get us atheists off our asses and 'into the streets' in whatever way is a good thing, in the long run.

phaedrus

JG

First as i said....If it is not, why the objection to the term? As i said, the "if dennett used "!@#!$@!%@" instead of "bright", the whole piece would have been more likeable?"

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings. I hurt the feelings of theists all the time. It's about avoiding personal embarrassment. Calling oneself a 'Bright" is just plan tacky - like the nerd at school who refers to HIMSELF as 'gifted'.

I can see something here...you are already using the term "nerd" which if i am not wrong has negative connotations to talk about a person who thinks that he is "gifted". The analogy doesnt sit right especially since the "nerd" doesnt call himself that, his peers do that for whatever reasons.

In any case, how can that be personally embarrasing, when a person who is good thinks he is good? What is wrong with that? Is self-confidence a wrong thing? Let me see if the school's leading player says he is good....is that a bad thing? Or does it apply to only people who claim mental superiority?

And there is no analogy to the word 'gay'. It was pointed out by someone that 'gay' was a put-down word, like fag and queer, that homosexuals were called, so they embraced it and turned it around on their tormentors

I am not talking about today, just like "bright" has been coined...talking about the days when the term "gay" was used to describe homosexuals....did they cringe? If my memory serves me welll there was a book by Chauncy which dealt with the origins of the word gay and how it came into usage.

And moreover, if "atheist" is a put-down word....whats wrong with using "bright"?

No theist that I know of has ever called an atheist a 'Bright', ergo, nothing to turn around. However, the word 'atheist' may properly be analogised with the word 'gay'.

Maybe thats whey dennett & co ....started using this term

This would be the only good thing to come out of this 'Bright' shit, i.e., encouraging a public debate on what atheism really implies, and encouraging more atheists to come out of the closet (there's another proper gay analogy) to defend themselves in various public forums, against both ignorant theists and the ridiculous term 'Bright'.

Maybe they will come out easily because of the positive connotations of the new word, as dennett pointed out in the article....Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

Gays certainly don't stand silent anymore when others try to stereotype them and unfairly discriminate against them, and neither do blacks, women, indigenous Americans, et al. So I agree that anything that would tend to get us atheists off our asses and 'into the streets' in whatever way is a good thing, in the long run.

They used to stand silent....just like many closet atheists probably do and probably the "bright" movement will help in many of them shedding their insecurity and fight for a society that recognises their needs/rights...

Rhetoric helps....especially while moulding public opinion or changing perception...look at all those god men shouting and screaming

Personally i have no problems whatsoever with the term "bright", but what americans need and want is another issue. When it becomes a global phenom....people will be ready to embrace it is what my opinion is.

jp

Buddrow_Wilson

Like I've already mentioned, if they were open with the fact that it will come across as elitist, I would have more respect for the movement. I do feel it is generally a brighter person who rejects supernaturalism.

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".