Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oresta · 08-10-2003, 02:47 PM

viscousmemories:
Based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is a large and vocal number of naturalists who will not ever embrace the word Bright to describe themselves. And without substantial acceptance and usage, it becomes completely ineffective as a tool for rallying naturalists into a political force.

More anecdotal evidence:
Many, if not most, mainstream and long-standing Christian sects have names that are descriptive, in some sense, of their founding theology or founder: Congregationalist, Baptist, Lutheran, Prostestant, Presbyterian, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, etc. "Atheist" is a term that has been around for centuries and crisply describes what or where we are not on the spooky belief spectrum. "Bright" describes nothing related to a secular belief, has no etymological roots to its purported adherents, and is just plain silly. Sectarians, encountering it for the first time, once having it explained, would probably regard it as a "front" organization for subversive, pinko actvities of those godless Atheists. On the other hand, "Bright" sounds to me suspiciously like a verbal closet.

We are already a potential political force; not as atheists, but as activist defenders of the First Amendment, in coalition with sectarians of all stripes. We don't have to sleep with those guys, we just have to march, letter write, lobby, etc. with them.

southernhybrid · 08-10-2003, 02:57 PM

I'm really not interested in debating the future of the bright movement. At first I hated the word as much as anyone and without giving it that much thought, brushed it off as silly. After reading and thinking about if for the past few weeks I'm starting to change my viewpoint.

I only want to mention one reason why I changed my mind about the word itself. I like the word Bright, as silly as it sounds at first because unlike the vast majority of the other words we use to describe ourselves, the word Bright is totally free of religious or theist baggage. Think about it. Almost every other word is somehow connected to the god belief, including freethinker as in one who thinks freely and apart from traditional religion. I agree that naturalist or realist might be better descriptions but they also have the potential to confuse. A naturalist is also commonly used to describe a person who studies or explores nature and a realist is used in a variety of ways to describe eople.

I have not yet signed the Bright list yet but I may do so in the next few weeks after thinking more about the matter. I feel like I have nothing to lose. By asserting ourselves as Brights we are giving those who support a naturalist view of life a voice, even if it's just a publicity stunt. We are using a name that one who shares our naturalist view has made up and the rest of us can agree to support it if feel comfortable doing so. I like that much better than taking the names that society has given us. It doesn't matter how that name is perceived. What matters is that we have the potential to gain strength by making it obvious that nontheists are not some rare immoral introverts that hate Xians ( although we have a few of those too and that's cool ) but that we are everywhere and we come from all walks of life. We don't have to agree on anything to be a bright except that this world is all that there is for us.

There's no meetings, no dues, no elected officials and no dogma. That is much different from Humanist and Freethought societies. That is why this has the potential to be something positive for us. It reguires almost no effort by the individual except to assert that you're a person with a naturalistic view of life. It's that simple. It's starting to be fun as far as I'm concerned and if nothing else it may inspire some activism in some of us. It may help us dilute the influence of the religious right simply by putting us out in the public arena. We make up at least 10% of the US population by most statistics and that's quite a sizable minority. We need to start giving ourselves a collective identity and that's all this does.

I don't mind using a name that others might ridicule. I've always been a person that could laugh at herself and saying I'm a Bright is bound to be a good conversation starter. For now, I'm keeping my sense of humor and having some fun with this. If it dies out in a few months, I doubt we'll be any worse off than we are right now.

On the 24th my humanist group is having an informal discussion regarding the Bright concept. It will be interesting to hear the views of the others in my community. Maybe I'll share what the others think about the idea if anyone has anything different to say.

Sorry vm. I'm not trying to torture you, really I'm not.

Oresta · 08-10-2003, 03:03 PM

So why don't you simply call yourself a "Naturalist" What's the term 'Bright" have to do with your logical dismissal of the name "Atheist"?

viscousmemories · 08-10-2003, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by southernhybrid
I'm really not interested in debating the future of the bright movement. It is a movement and not an organization and I think that makes it a positive thing with potential. At first I hated the word and without giving it that much thought, brushed it off as silly. After reading and thinking about if for the past few weeks I've changed my mind.

Dammit Jim! We've lost another one! *Jim looks up at the glowing orb, shielding his eyes*

My god, Bones. What. Is it?*

Quote:

I only want to mention one reason why I changed my mind. I like the word Bright as silly as it sounds at first because unlike the vast majority of the other words we use to describe ourselves, the word Bright is totally free of religious or theist baggage. Think about it. Almost every other word is somehow connected to the god belief, including freethinker as in one who thinks freely and apart from traditional religion. I agree that naturalist or realist might be better descriptions but they also have the potential to confuse. After all, a naturalist is also commonly used to describe a person who studies or explores nature and a realist is used in a variety of ways to describe people.

Well, you really make several points here. You have accepted the proposition that we naturalists will somehow benefit from having a new word to define us, you think the new word should be free of religious reference, and you think it should not be confusing. I agree on all three points, and assert that 'naturalist' fits the bill better than 'bright'. At least there's a chance that someone will be able to figure out what a 'naturalist' is without help. There is no such chance of anyone deducing what a 'Bright' is.

Quote:

So, maybe the entire Bright movement will die out in a year as vm has predicted. ( didn't know you were a prophet

) or maybe quite a few of us will start to come around as copernicous has prophesized.

I can't believe you didn't know I'm a prophet. What do I have to do to prove it? Write it in Arabic and bury it for a couple thousand years?

Anyway, it hardly takes a supernatural act to see the fate of this idea. I just laugh at the fools that I'm sure exist (though I don't have any examples to cite) who have been paying prominent naturalists to come give lectures to their organization about the benefit of being a Bright. Mark my words, somebody's laughing their Bright ass all the way to the bank.

Quote:

I have not yet signed the Bright list yet but I may do so in the next few weeks after thinking more about the matter. I feel like I have nothing to lose. By asserting ourselves as Brights we are giving those who support a naturalist view of life a voice. We are using a name that we have made up ourselves. It doesn't matter how that name is perceived. What matters is that we have the potential to gain strength by making it obvious that nontheists are not some rare immoral introverts that hate Xians ( although we have a few of those too and that's cool ) but that we are everywhere and we come from all walks of life. We don't have to agree on anything to be a bright except that this world is all that we have. There's no meetings, no dues, no elected officials and no dogma. That is why this has the potential to be something positive for those of us who believe that the natural world is all there is to it.

I think you make an excellent case for not signing up as a Bright then. After all, if you're not really joining an organization, and there are no meetings, dues, elected officals, or dogma, what would be the point?

vm

*Screw any Trekkies who find this representation inaccurate. I haven't even SEEN Star Trek in 15 years. Get over it. Except you, JD. We cool.

southernhybrid · 08-10-2003, 03:53 PM

Sorry vm. I posted that little diatribe accidentally before I was ready and have already deleted some things that you commented on during my edit. You're just too fast!

You asked me why would I sign up if it's not an organization. It's just a way of saying that I agree with the idea of using one word to describe those with a naturalist viewpoint. I'm already a member of a humanist group which is totally different. The Humanist group is an organization with dues, a general statement of ethics, elected officers and all that jazz. It's a philosophy that not all nontheists, er I mean Brights agree with.

I view this Bright thing as something completely different. I've seen many things change in my life time. I've seen Black people obtain a lot of civil rights. I've seen women make tremendous strides in the area of equality. I've seen the word gay coined by homosexuals and I've seen it give them a piece of political power. I think it's possible that the same can happen for Brights. ( just playing with the name for fun ) This may fall flat on its face. That's okay. Maybe during the time it's around, someone else will come up with a better way to give us more visibility. Until then, why not give it a chance. That's the way I'm trying to approach it.

viscousmemories · 08-10-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by southernhybrid
Until then, why not give it a chance. That's the way I'm trying to approach it.

For me it's really simple: I won't call myself a Bright because it's lame. I am proud of the fact that I have reasoned my way to non-belief. I'm not about to adopt a word to describe myself to others that makes me seem like some silly, deluded cultist. I swear my respect for people goes down a notch when I hear them say "I'm a Bright". I'm sorry for feeling that way and I hate to insult anyone, but it's true. It just sounds like, "I'm a Puppy". Sure it's cute and playful, but on a subject as serious to me as my worldview it's embarrasingly simplistic and childish.

vm

copernicus · 08-10-2003, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by viscousmemories
...but what about naturalist?

I've discussed this one with excreationist, and I agree with Southernhybrid's intuition. Most people think "biologist" or "nature lover" when they hear the word. It doesn't really do much for me.

Southernhybrid also made another point that I agree strongly with, and that is that our feelings about these kinds of words change as we become more used to them. When I first heard the word on NPR, I thought "What a dumb idea!" Now it doesn't sound so strange. Our attitudes toward new word usage tend to change as we hear the candidate words used more. Sometimes, the words burn out quickly. Sometimes they hang around for a long time. New words are like new food. They can be an acquired taste.

Quote:

... You've probably noticed that infidels tend to be particularly skeptical and stubborn. That's because many of us (most of us, likely) were lied to by people in authority for many years of our life, and at some point opened our eyes, removed our heads from our asses, and started making our own decisions about what we will and will not endorse. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is a large and vocal number of naturalists who will not ever embrace the word Bright to describe themselves. And without substantial acceptance and usage, it becomes completely ineffective as a tool for rallying naturalists into a political force...

Actually, I work with a controlled language writing standard in an engineering industry. That refers to a writing standard in which vocabulary, grammar, and style are heavily regulated. Frankly, infidels are pussycats in comparison to engineers. Trying to tell an engineer that he can't use the verb "inspect" is roughly equivalent to pulling his tooth out without anesthesia. One engineer told me that it took him an entire year to realize that he could get along with "make sure" instead of "verify" in writing test procedures. Then he became an evangelist for the idea. Normal people can really get crazy when it comes to word usage, but engineers are prepared to defend their linguistic territory with nuclear weapons.

viscousmemories · 08-10-2003, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by copernicus
Southernhybrid also made another point that I agree strongly with, and that is that our feelings about these kinds of words change as we become more used to them. When I first heard the word on NPR, I thought "What a dumb idea!" Now it doesn't sound so strange.

Ironically, to me the word sounds more ridiculous every time I hear it because I'm becoming so well accquainted with its use. I mean, you're right that it's phonetically less strange now that I've heard it a lot, but it's even more annoying because I'm hearing it at all. That's cool though, by the third moon of the next warm cow, I am quite certain it will go the way of Milli Vanilli; another silly sounding bad idea.

vm

southernhybrid · 08-11-2003, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Ironically, to me the word sounds more ridiculous every time I hear it because I'm becoming so well accquainted with its use. I mean, you're right that it's phonetically less strange now that I've heard it a lot, but it's even more annoying because I'm hearing it at all. That's cool though, by the third moon of the next warm cow, I am quite certain it will go the way of Milli Vanilli; another silly sounding bad idea.

vm

Okay that's cool and while the rest of us are assimilated by the meme machine since resistance is futile, you will be Left Behind!

Seriously though. This morning I was sent an email about a march in Atlanta by some Xian group that supports Judge Moore in Alabama. These people are starting this movement to restore the ten commandments back to our government where they think they belong. That's the type of thing that makes me want to be more a part of an organized effort to stop this insanity from the religious right. I've joined the ACLU, a humanist group and I'll call myself a bright if it helps. I'll call myself a stubborn shithead if it gets our numbers noticed. That's all this is about, imo.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose would smell as sweet by any other name. Shakespeare's wisdom still applies today.

viscousmemories · 10-16-2003, 11:56 PM

Sorry Shake (and anyone else pained by seeing this old beast revived), gotta bump it again.

It looks to me like Michael Shermer, one of the very early adopters and oft-noted supporters of the Brights, is not quite as enthusiastic as he once was.

Excerpts from his article "The Big 'Bright' Brouhaha":

Quote:

I had originally suggested to Paul and Mynga that we solicit feedback from various sources before settling on a new label, but they convinced me that sometimes social movements are best driven not by committee and excessive discussion (free thinkers, humanists, and skeptics have been talking about the labeling problem for decades) but by simply moving forward with the goal of making it happen by momentum, will, and force of personality. Since much of what I do gels with this philosophy, I was initially receptive.

But then the Associate Director of the Skeptics Society, Matt Cooper, pointed out (based on his experience as a marketing consultant and political activist) that it is not the philosophy of the movement under debate, but the brand name. This is a branding issue, not an ideology issue. And the scientific approach to branding is to conduct focus groups and market tests to see what works. Unfortunately, this was never done for the bright brand, and as a consequence we are now embroiled in a big bright brouhaha.

Quote:

The next stage in this research project would be for someone to formally market test the bright brand name with a large sample size, comparing it to the most popular alternatives suggested by the focus group, then run a statistical test on the results to determine which, if any, of the names will create a positive initial impression of the movement for the greatest proportion of unaffiliated individuals. Such market tests are not difficult to conduct, but they can be expensive if done properly. I hope that this preliminary empirical investigation stimulates just such a market study.

As of today Mr. Shermer is still listed on the Brights website as a supporter, including a link to an article he wrote on the subject (posted there) and with a link to his website (which at the moment features his new article). I wonder if the Brights will now remove his endorsement from their page, or if it's a "once a Bright, always a Bright" kind of deal.

vm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2003, 02:47 PM	#241
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	viscousmemories: Based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is a large and vocal number of naturalists who will not ever embrace the word Bright to describe themselves. And without substantial acceptance and usage, it becomes completely ineffective as a tool for rallying naturalists into a political force. More anecdotal evidence: Many, if not most, mainstream and long-standing Christian sects have names that are descriptive, in some sense, of their founding theology or founder: Congregationalist, Baptist, Lutheran, Prostestant, Presbyterian, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, etc. "Atheist" is a term that has been around for centuries and crisply describes what or where we are not on the spooky belief spectrum. "Bright" describes nothing related to a secular belief, has no etymological roots to its purported adherents, and is just plain silly. Sectarians, encountering it for the first time, once having it explained, would probably regard it as a "front" organization for subversive, pinko actvities of those godless Atheists. On the other hand, "Bright" sounds to me suspiciously like a verbal closet. We are already a potential political force; not as atheists, but as activist defenders of the First Amendment, in coalition with sectarians of all stripes. We don't have to sleep with those guys, we just have to march, letter write, lobby, etc. with them.

08-10-2003, 02:57 PM	#242
southernhybrid Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: heavenly Georgia Posts: 3,862	I'm really not interested in debating the future of the bright movement. At first I hated the word as much as anyone and without giving it that much thought, brushed it off as silly. After reading and thinking about if for the past few weeks I'm starting to change my viewpoint. I only want to mention one reason why I changed my mind about the word itself. I like the word Bright, as silly as it sounds at first because unlike the vast majority of the other words we use to describe ourselves, the word Bright is totally free of religious or theist baggage. Think about it. Almost every other word is somehow connected to the god belief, including freethinker as in one who thinks freely and apart from traditional religion. I agree that naturalist or realist might be better descriptions but they also have the potential to confuse. A naturalist is also commonly used to describe a person who studies or explores nature and a realist is used in a variety of ways to describe eople. I have not yet signed the Bright list yet but I may do so in the next few weeks after thinking more about the matter. I feel like I have nothing to lose. By asserting ourselves as Brights we are giving those who support a naturalist view of life a voice, even if it's just a publicity stunt. We are using a name that one who shares our naturalist view has made up and the rest of us can agree to support it if feel comfortable doing so. I like that much better than taking the names that society has given us. It doesn't matter how that name is perceived. What matters is that we have the potential to gain strength by making it obvious that nontheists are not some rare immoral introverts that hate Xians ( although we have a few of those too and that's cool ) but that we are everywhere and we come from all walks of life. We don't have to agree on anything to be a bright except that this world is all that there is for us. There's no meetings, no dues, no elected officials and no dogma. That is much different from Humanist and Freethought societies. That is why this has the potential to be something positive for us. It reguires almost no effort by the individual except to assert that you're a person with a naturalistic view of life. It's that simple. It's starting to be fun as far as I'm concerned and if nothing else it may inspire some activism in some of us. It may help us dilute the influence of the religious right simply by putting us out in the public arena. We make up at least 10% of the US population by most statistics and that's quite a sizable minority. We need to start giving ourselves a collective identity and that's all this does. I don't mind using a name that others might ridicule. I've always been a person that could laugh at herself and saying I'm a Bright is bound to be a good conversation starter. For now, I'm keeping my sense of humor and having some fun with this. If it dies out in a few months, I doubt we'll be any worse off than we are right now. On the 24th my humanist group is having an informal discussion regarding the Bright concept. It will be interesting to hear the views of the others in my community. Maybe I'll share what the others think about the idea if anyone has anything different to say. Sorry vm. I'm not trying to torture you, really I'm not.

08-10-2003, 03:03 PM	#243
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	So why don't you simply call yourself a "Naturalist" What's the term 'Bright" have to do with your logical dismissal of the name "Atheist"?

08-10-2003, 03:53 PM	#245
southernhybrid Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: heavenly Georgia Posts: 3,862	Sorry vm. I posted that little diatribe accidentally before I was ready and have already deleted some things that you commented on during my edit. You're just too fast! You asked me why would I sign up if it's not an organization. It's just a way of saying that I agree with the idea of using one word to describe those with a naturalist viewpoint. I'm already a member of a humanist group which is totally different. The Humanist group is an organization with dues, a general statement of ethics, elected officers and all that jazz. It's a philosophy that not all nontheists, er I mean Brights agree with. I view this Bright thing as something completely different. I've seen many things change in my life time. I've seen Black people obtain a lot of civil rights. I've seen women make tremendous strides in the area of equality. I've seen the word gay coined by homosexuals and I've seen it give them a piece of political power. I think it's possible that the same can happen for Brights. ( just playing with the name for fun ) This may fall flat on its face. That's okay. Maybe during the time it's around, someone else will come up with a better way to give us more visibility. Until then, why not give it a chance. That's the way I'm trying to approach it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.