King Rat

I'da called 'em Chaswozzers.

GunnerJ

The problem is, you think you've put some sort of gauntlet down that all the people who are against the use of the term "Bright" have to answer: "Haha, can't come up with a better term, can you?"

The really important part is not "can you come up with a better term," but "...that does what they are trying to do on that 'Bright' web site." The fact is, no. And I don't care, because what they are trying to do-- come up with a "monosylabic, linguistically positive" term for what we all are-- is irrelevent to me. The only criteria I see as important in using a term to describe my beliefs is that it:

1) is accurate, and
2) doesn't make me feel like an idiot to use.

"Humanist" is a good term, "infidel" is better, because of it's delightful subversive factor (remember that "sense of humor" thing?). I couldn't give two shits less if neither is monosylabic, as I don't redefine myself for people too dumb to understand "big words." Nor could I care less if one of them is "linguistically negative." And I am very unimpressed by the argument that both have negative connotations: all the Bright advocates make comparisons to how the gay community gained acceptance, but the thing that they (gay people) did which impressed me most in this regard was when the took a term like "queer," which was intended as a slur, and adopted it, thus subverting its hateful meaning. It's the same with how young black men call each other "nigger," how my close friend can be "my nigga." It defangs the term of negative meanings.

But most important of all, I can call myself a humanist or an infidel with a straight face, without blushing, and without imagining a big, honking, lightbulb-shaped hat on my head. That is why "Bright" loses, and why I really am not concerned with the aims of the people who came up with "Bright" as a term to describe my beliefs.

Shake

Thank you, Clark and David M. Payne, for defending what I believe is an attempt to make things better for us non-believers. I have to admit that I was quite disheartened to see the reaction that this topic has gotten, and was thinking of requesting that it be closed.

I feel that this topic has been nitpicked to death ('gay used to mean happy' etc.). Look, everyone, these folks are trying to make a positive step and you're just all hung up on the word. There won't be any mandatory membership, so if you don't like it, don't use the term. But if they can put "bling-bling" in the dictionary, they can add a new meaning to 'Bright,' as a noun even.
This quote comes from the site. It states a desire, not an order. This also answers the question about why not using "infidel" or "humanist." It's supposed to be an umbrella (to use their word) term. It can encompass humanists, atheists, etc. While you or I might be proud of the term "infidel" (a la "Internet Infidels"), and yes, I wear my II shirt proudly even, but you know it has a very negative connotation. Esp. in the Muslim world.

To me, it seems that many of you are either missing the point or choosing to ignore it. If it's the former, I hope you can at least see where they're coming from (I don't expect everyone to agree). If you're in the latter group, then I'll just say that you're not being very understanding.

*Shake now withdraws from his thread*

GunnerJ

I understand that they are suggesting something, not mandating it. But you started a discussion on this suggestion, and that means people are free to debate the pros and cons of it. So don't be all "hey, they're not holding a gun to your head or anything" just because most people dislike the term: whether "Bright" was a suggestion or an order was never at issue.

Also, I do not object to the term because of linguistic nitpicks. I object to it because it's a stupid term. It's completely based on my opinion.

No, it doesn't. The word infidel doesn't mean "one with a naturalistic worldview," but neither does "Bright!" You're adding a meaning to an existing word, just as I could with the term infidel, and I could do so while maintaining my self-respect, which I can't say about using the term "Bright."

Also, the term "humanist," as I understand it, does include a naturalistic view of the world.

Also, it's a blatant lie for the site to say that there is no term for "persons whose worldview is naturalistic." That term is "naturalist," or, more formally, "metaphysical naturalist." I will not be persuaded by claims that these terms are "too big," as I have previously stated that I don't care.

As I have admitted. I know it has a negative connotation. That, coupled with the fact that it sounds less like some UFO-cult term, is why I like it better than "Bright:" it's subversive.

Or maybe we understand all too well... and don't like the idea of skipping from one euphamism to another, trying to avoid the scorn of people who dislike what we think. Trying to co-opt the word "Bright" to mean "naturalist" just because it's "commonly accepted" and "affirmative" is cowardice, and embarassing cowardice at that. Why should I hide behind some touchy-feely term like "Bright?" I'm an infidel and a heretic and a humanist: I disavow gods, creeds, and superstition of all sorts, proclaiming the power of human beings to change the world. If someone dislikes that, tough. I'm not going to shrink back to some feel-good, embarassing-sounding buzzword just because of their bigotry. There very idea that I should do so, as the advocates of the "Bright" term seem to hold, assumes that there's something wrong with my view that needs to be "sugar-coated." That's BS, and that's the way I see it.

In any situation, this effort, like all euphamisms, is fundamentally misguided: trying to hide a supposedly unpleasent idea behind a pleasent word will soon taint that new word as well. As a case example, consider how the term "retarded" was replaced with "special." It won't work for very long.

RufusAtticus

And groups that call themselves "chosen" are not at all saying that other people are not chosen. Right. . . .

Gooch's dad

GunnerJ nailed it. The term is offered as a suggestion, and I agree with GunnerJ and others that it sounds silly. I would never call myself a "Bright". I'm quite happy calling myself an atheist.

girlwriter

I'll second that!!

And I'll add that the stated purpose of this whole thing is to get the world to generally accept and understand the word bright to refer to naturalists in general. If, as you claim, the word is accepted and used as the word gay is, then we all would have to live with it. Clark, you said yourself that we'll get used to it eventually. So in a way it is something that's being forced on us. But I don't really think it will work, so I guess I should just let it go.

For the record, I DID read the websight. And I don't feel that the whole thing was well thought out at all. I don't give a rat's ass who came up with it. I am not missing the point. I understand very well what these people want to do. I just happen to feel that the whole thing is ill-concieved and poorly executed.

AquaVita

Upon further reading of the site, and this thread...I can safely say this is probably the stupidest, most moronic idea I've ever heard in my entire life. I am not exaggerating a bit here.

I mean really, "bright"?

As Gunner said, I picture some guy in a white robe flowing around a field of cyanide scented flowers.


I mean really...as it's already been said you can't go around making up words and assigning them arbitrary meanings. Not to mention they just plain seem to make up words as well.(igtheist...?)

If we are to earn any respect as a group of people, we'll have to do much better then that. It insults people's intelligence, their identities, and it insults the actual word BRIGHT.

I still don't see what's so wrong with "atheist" or "agnostic" to be honest. If people want to find a word with less baggage, then I'm all for suggestions. Just not crappy delusional ones like "The Brights!"

Deadend

Bright doesn't really translate into Dutch, accoording to my 'Van Dale English-Dutch Dictionary' it translates as:

That is; 'a brush, the day(light), a high-beam headlamp, clear, cheerful, clever' and 'entertainment district'. Though I may be tempted to call myself 'tipkwastje,' I think that, for now, I'll continue to call myself 'atheïst.'

Deadend

ooh, I also came across this Guardian article by Richard Dawkins, relevant to this topic.