Shake

Alright, I'm back with a quick question. I keep hearing everyone say, "It'll never catch on." Well, here's the question, then: What if it does catch on? What if some day you hear Peter Jennings or Pat Robertson or the President talking about 'the Brights'?
Well LadyShea, it is possible to do both! And if a new term can help get non-believers some respect and get rid of some stress, then I'd call that helping my fellow humans.

Now, just as a statement of belief (i.e. I'm not going to debate this further): I believe you can change the meaning of a word, or at least its usage (adj. to noun or what-have-you). Obviously, you can't do this overnight.

Anyway, we'll see what happens with the movement. Even I will still call myself an atheist. I'm not ashamed of that label, I just wish it didn't have such a negative association to most of the public.

We've had other threads (mostly in C-SS&SA) talking about what can be done to at least get rid of the knee-jerk reaction that most people have when they hear the 'a'-word. We've all heard the Bush (Sr., IIRC) quote about how atheists aren't true Americans (TM). If someone at that level can voice such an opinion with no public outcry, that's a big problem. Is it being kind of sneaky to change the label for some (perhaps) temporary acceptance on some level? Maybe, but if it works at all, then I feel it's helped the cause of those of us who don't follow the religious norm.

Now, you've got W up there in Washington, trying to establish a theocracy, and other vocal public figures who would try to cram Xianity down our throats, calling us un-American, etc. Who do we have at that level, any public level even, speaking for us? No one! I'm not even suggesting we necessarily need someone, but we would like to have those in power at least be considerate of our rights, and give us the respect we deserve as citizens and ultimately as people.

This is really all I'm going to say in this thread about the issue unless somebody presents something truly novel, not rehashing the same arguments.

(No hard feelings to those who disagree. I respect your views, too.)

AquaVita

I will shoot myself.


But in case I deem that to be too extreme, I will politely correct anyone who happens to call ME a bright, explaining that I don't belong to that kool-aid cult. I am merely agnostic.

Demosthenes

"You're a Bright!"

"No I'm not"

"Yes you are!"

"NO! I'm an atheist!"

Rhea

Well, you're not a TRUE Bright!

pz

An old quote from Dawkins:
What do you think has happened to him recently? Senility?

girlwriter

Shake, this is exactly why I'm opposed to this idea. You asserted earlier that no one is forcing this on anyone. But what if you are right? What if this does catch on? What about those of us who are being realistic and acknowledging the likely reactions our friends and family will have to the term? We don't want to be refered to as/associated with brights. If you want to call yourself a bright, then do so, but be honest. You're talking about attempting to create a blanket term for all of us, one that - if it is successful - we will all have to live with.

Do you honestly believe that calling yourself a bright will change those knee-jerk, negative reactions that you get when you tell people you don't believe? Open your eyes, it is not going to happen. Do you honestly believe that people will not think you are trying to make your belief system sound superior to theirs by calling yourself a bright? Don't come back with the "noun, not an adjective" argument, it's a non-seauitor, and it's non-sense at that. I'm talking about what people know the word to mean. If it cantches on, it will most likely have a negative impact on people's perception of atheists, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

Incedentally, I know of a great way to change people's perspective about atheists, and it's a lot easier than creating a new euphemism and trying to convince others of it's new meaning.

Tell people you're an atheist. In most cases, the person will have thier preconcieved ideas forcably changed, because they cannot justify thier preconcieved notions that atheists are monsters with the living, breathing, decent, normal human being in front of them. If enough of us do this, as homosexuals have done, then people, over time, will begin to see us as we *are.* Normal, decent people. There is no other way to accomplish this. Then and *only* then, will people have posative associations with whatever we choose to call ourselves. It doesn't matter how the word sounds, or how many syllables are in it. What matters is what people associate with the word. People who have a negative image of atheists will never lose that until they are directly presented with a posative image of an athiest. Not a word. A person, and that person's deeds. I'll repost LadyShea's Ingersoll quote, because this, I believe, is the *only* way to do what you are talking about.

lpetrich

Calling oneself a "Bright" -- to me, that is so stupid that I have been reluctant to comment on it.

I'd prefer calling myself a "heathen", although that's a bit like "pagan".

ranterjmc

I can follow why people want "The Brights" but it really doesn't sound quite right - maybe people will think it arrogant and implying that religious people are stupid. The only benefit is that it's one syllable.

One trouble with "atheist", "agnostic" and "humanist" is that they're all 3 syllables.

I wondered about just "human"?

It implies something that "I am what you see. I haven't got some agenda bases on something you can't see or hear or touch" and it does seem a word that xtians in particular fight shy of.

Bunny Lover

Hello,

Think of the children...

Chris Christian: "Hey Billy, you doing anything Sunday afternoon?"

Billy Bright: "No, just sleep maybe."

Chris C: "Some of the other guys are going to my church's Rockin' Revival party on Sunday. Wanna come?"

Billy B: "No."

Chris C: "Why not?"

Billy B: "Cuz I'm a Bright."

Chris C: "What did you say?"

Billy B: "I'm a Bright! Like, a person who doesn't believe in God or Jesus either."

Chris C: "You mean like an atheist?"

Billy B: "Yeah, but call me a Bright please, okay?"

Zeke Dumderkoph: "Hey, excuse me, uh, what did you say?"

Billy B: "I said I'm a Bright!"

Zeke D: "Wow. I used to not believe in God or Jesus either, but now I'm totally converted."

Chris C: "Praise Emmanuel! How's he do you, Zeke?"

Zeke D: "Well, I overheard your conversation and realized that the Lord is real and has blessed us with this fruitfull bounty of a little prick that everyone hates anyway who goes around calling himself a "Bright." Now me and my friends will beat his ass in abundance and heavenly grace. Praise Jesus!"

enrious

I was opposed to the term at first, but I became more open to it the more I thought about the possibilities.

For example, we could adopt the slogan, "Be a Bright unto the World."

We could refer to non-members as "Not-so-Bright".

When a fellow Bright did a good deed, we could say that was "mighty Bright" of them.

We could adopt the chant, "Bright power, Bright Power!" for those tedious courthouse marches.

Our children could be referred to as "Bright-lites".

A close-knit group of Brights could be "Tighty Brighties".

We could establish Bright only neighborhoods, to keep the "darks" out. Bright power!

We would have to work to see that the phrase "Down with Brighty" is never employed against us.

The mind boggles at the possibilities.