ex-preacher

FWIW, I heard Rush Limbaugh going on for several minutes today about the term "Bright" to describe atheists. Of course, he was completely against it ("wouldn't want to ruin a word the way gay was ruined"), yet still he was giving this term incredible publicity. I'm starting to like being a Bright.

clark

I must admit, I'm a little surprised at this...

From the Lawrence O'Donnell show on July 19, 2003. The transcript is here.

When asked about the winners and losers of the week, Penn replied:

Penn also writes a little about the appearance and Bright here.

Let's see: Penn, Dawkins, Randi, Dennett, Shermer... yeah, I think we Brights are in pretty good company, not to mention the fact that Lush Windbag has already ranted against us .

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Edit to add link - Clark]

viscousmemories

Ah, so it's become an "us and them" thing now, has it? We must either now choose the side of Dawkins et. al. or Rush Limbaugh? Well, I'm still not going to. I don't hate people with a naturalistic worldview (of which I am one) nor do I embrace this "new word". I must say I'm a little surprised that someone could flip through page after page in this thread of very intelligent, thoughtful criticism of this "movement", and respond with little more than an argument from authority.

I'm getting used to it, though. In discussions I've participated in on three different boards, the "Bright(tm)" followers can't seem to rationalize their devotion beyond quoting their mothership (the "Brights(tm)" website) or referencing those notable skeptics who have already bought in to this tripe.

By the way, I'm not terribly familiar with Penn's lingo, but when he says, "I plugged "The-bright.net" a lot and there was a really nice package with that" regarding his appearance on that TV show, it almost sounds as if he's saying he was paid to endorse the "Brights(tm)". Ah well, I can hope anyway. God forbid he's promoting this nonsense out of a genuine belief that it makes sense.

vm

clark

Actually, in the sense that they think Bright will take off, Dawkins and Limbaugh on the same side. It's not an "us and them" thing; if one wants to use Bright, great. If not, fine. By arguing against it and giving it more publicity, the detractors are just helping Bright as a meme.

I hardly think most of the criticism is "intelligent and thoughtful". Some of it is, but most of it is just "it's just stupid" ranting. I will say the criticisms on IIDB are much more intelligent than that raving whiner who criticized it on Alternet. One one list I'm on, one of the state directors for American Atheists, who himself isn't keen on Bright, wrote a letter to the author, cc'd to the list, critiquing her especially for her tone which, in his opinion, was "childish". I welcome more articles like the one on Alternet, though, as it helps give Bright publicity.

I'm not trying to use an argument from authority, just showing how Bright is making waves in media. The commentary from Limbaugh is especially significant, IMO, as it reaches different people than the other articles have reached. Bright has given atheists more media coverage - most of it positive - than anything else in the past few years, with the possible exception of Mike Newdow.

Yeah, I'm sure Penn was paid. He and Teller have a long-term seven figure deal at a major Las Vegas resort, and he does frequent tv appearances and voice-over work. I'm sure he needs the extra scratch from a couple of California educators. Yeah, he must have been paid as he couldn't sign on to an idea like this honestly. Dawkins has already been accused of senility, and I'm sure that's the case, too. Randi couldn't like Bright either. Uri Geller must be exercising some sort of mind control on him. Dennett must have absorbed some mind altering substances at some point during his cognitive research, as there's no way he could like Bright from his own free will. As for Shermer, I don't know, maybe the "God Helmet" he wore during the Persiger experiments at Laurentian University is having lasting effects. I'm sure the other supporters listed on the Brights website, most of which are leaders of US freethought groups, have similar issues and don't really support Bright.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

Viti

VM and Clark, gonna have to ask you to cool it...in here at least. I have no problems with any of your posts, but they're getting a bit heated for this forum.

I have thought this would make a good debate for our new Formal Debate forum and in fact planned to start it myself, but due to real life issues I don't have the time. Would you two consider taking it there? I think it would be of interest to many people.

GunnerJ

By the same token, the maintainers of the National Holocaust Museum are helping Nazism as a meme. All publicity is good publicity, sure.

(And lest anyone accuse me of comparing Bright-advocates to Nazis, let me pre-emptively remind everyone of the Fallacy of Extended Analogy)

clark

That's cool. I do not have time to adequately prepare for and participate in a formal debate, either.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

Viti

<Mod Hat On>

Well, hmmm. Normally this forum is not for debate, but I think this topic needs to be discussed and this is the right forum technically for that discussion. There are strong feelings on both sides so it may get heated.

Okay, I am only going to moderate this particular discussion using the general board rules rather than the stricter SL rules.

Basically, I am not going to stifle any debate in this thread as long as the ad homs and blatant insults stay away as they have thus far.

LadyShea
SL Forum Moderator

viscousmemories

Ironic, isn’t it? Someone comes up with a profoundly stupid idea, and the more I argue against it the more people hear about it. I suppose I can only hope that the majority of the people who are hearing it actually think about it and decide for themselves whether or not it makes sense to adopt, rather than “going with the flow”. That’s exactly why I have been devoting as much time as possible to challenging this term coming into common usage. By definition, I am a “Bright(tm)” whether I want to be or not. As you point out, it matters little if I prefer to call myself that. Once it becomes the de facto word to describe people with my general philosophy of life, I will be branded as such. By the same token, if those two clowns (why do I feel as though I’ve just blasphemed?) that started this “movement” ever decide to spruce up their little cult with some new notions of what is True(tm), those beliefs will be ascribed to me as well.
Fair enough. In fact I’m guilty of a bit of “it’s just stupid” ranting myself. Mostly because I get tired of providing long, carefully constructed criticisms that are often summarily dismissed with a link to the “Brights(tm)” website and references to Dawkins’ and other’s endorsement. And I don’t mean to say that you haven’t contributed any original thought on this matter, it’s just that the bulk of your argument seems to be obvious appeals to authority along the lines of: Have you read the article you’re referring to? In it, the author dissects and disposes of the suggested correlation between homosexual’s reclaiming of the word “gay” and the “Brights(tm)” re-branding of the word “bright”. I think deconstructing one of the “Brights(tm)” key arguments in their own defense is more than “whining”. Someone at the JREF forum, interestingly enough, explains the important difference between “reclaiming” and “re-branding”, in this post. An excerpt: “If atheists want to reclaim an insulting word, we might try "Godless", "infidel" or "heretic", or even... well... "atheist". "Bright" is not reclaiming an insult, it's a rebranding, and rebranding has always struck me as silly at best. (Think Consignia, people...(UK reference).) Frankly I think it's rather insulting to the gay community that this rebranding exercise is even being compared with their struggle at all.”

And if you think the tone of the Alternet article’s author was childish, you must not have given much thought to what “I’m a ‘Bright(tm)’“ sounds like.
You said it yourself, Clark, in your first post on this thread.
It is making waves, that’s for sure. I disagree however with the notion that all publicity is good publicity. According to the “Brights(tm)” propaganda the purpose of the “new word” is to put a positive face on a “worldview” that has previously been scorned. Yet now you want to argue that scorn for the new word is a good thing?
Another point of irony, no? Considering the fact that one can be an atheist and not a “Bright(tm)”? I fail to see how re-branding a word and insinuating it into the language of philosophy is going to clarify anything. If you think it’s difficult to explain to the average person what a “naturalist” is, what makes you think it’s going to be any easier to explain to that person that a “Bright(tm)” is a person who holds a naturalist worldview?
Well, I’m confident we shant see a crow for miles with a strawman of that size in our courtyard. Now that you’ve gotten that rant off your chest, care to speculate on a possible alternate explanation for Penn’s words? I have no doubt in my mind all those people really do believe in this crap. Unfortunately, that isn’t enough to convince me that it has merit. I need an argument more convincing than “a bunch of really smart people think it’s grand”.

vm

Rusting Car Bumper

If anyone in the future asks me if I am a "Bright" I'm going to say "I'm bright but Im not a bright. I'm an atheist."

DC