WinAce

I have to say this is probably the dumbest idea I've ever read on an atheist website. Why not just call ourselves the Eloi and our theistic friends the Morlocks and be done with it if we wanna be condescending?

vagrant

:notworthy

Hear hear!

gcameron

I will never call myself a "bright." It seems to imply that I am smarter than the average theist, yet I have known many theists who are smarter than I am.

Of course, when homosexuals appropriated the word "gay" (note, I don't know the etymological history of this usage, whether it was conscious and organized or not) the same objection could have been made: heterosexuals are certainly capable of being "gayer" (in the original meaning of that word) than the average homosexual. So there is precedent.

But I still will not use "bright." It just sounds dumb. And arrogant.

I am an atheist. That is a *neutral* term. It describes nothing about me except for my lack of belief in gods. If some morons want to translate it in their mind as "baby-eating evil satanist," that is their problem, not mine.

clark

I have heard the Bright presentation three times, most recently this past weekend, and am behind it. Although this is a blatant "appeal to authority", many of the atheists I most respect are behind it: Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett. Dawkins is very gung-ho behind it and personally contacted Dennett. Dennett put together his own presentation promoting it at a recent science conference.

If you just hear the concept without Paul Geisert's and Mynga Futrell's presentation, it first sounds lame. The presentation makes a good case. If they have the powerpoint files on the website, they're worth looking at.

I don't know if it will catch on, but it's the best linguistic idea I've heard in this regard. It's monosyllabic and slogan-friendly. It's not really coopting an existing word, as Bright is a noun and the current use of bright is only an adjective. Bright is not meant as a replacent for other words, but a linguistically positive unifying term.

I've seen others attempt to offer "better" words than Bright. A better word, IMO, would also have to be monosyllabic and not linguistically negative (Atheist, NONbeliever, INfidel, godLess, etc.).

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

GunnerJ

No, no, you miss the whole point. Being "monosylabic" is irrelevent. Those words instantly beat out "the Brights" because they don't sound so goddamn stupid.

When I hear the term "Bright" as a label, I instantly get the mental image of someone skipping around in a shiny white tunic and wearing a lightbulb-shaped hat. "I'm a Bright!" (s)he chirps, smiling like some junkie mid-high. I can almost see the needle marks.

Queen of Swords

Maybe a gay atheist could be called a Rainbow Bright.

clark

A few decades ago, you could have pretty much said the same thing about "gay".

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

wildernesse

I sEcretly atheists, those sLum-lOrds and bAby-eaters. They are all wAlk and are wHite sPeak. One day, I was walking to the mailbox, and I saw my atheist neighbor hOtly his cHildren. Then, he looked at me and bOttle, "You're nExt!"

I made up some new words for concepts that we all know, and IMO they're much better! I didn't coopt many existing words--I mean sEcretly is a verb, and the current use, secretly, is only an adverb. What, you mean you can't understand me? Hey! sLum-lOrd and bAby-eaters don't have negative connotations! Because I say so, and many of the best sLowly fAsters are behind it!

--tibac, who, by the way, is a beautiful millionaire

RufusAtticus

Once again we see that being an atheist, even a famous one, doesn't make you bright.

Since when was "atheist identification" a topic of a science conference?

Oh slogans!

1. Those Brights ain't right.
2. Fight the Brights.
3. Don't give those Brights rights.
4. We want the Brights out of our sights.
5. Brights, fear our might!
6. Brights lack insight.
7. Brights have no light.
8. Brights need the light.
9. No Brights in a fight.
10. Brights bite.

Yes, slogan-friendly is a good thing.

So "Bright" was generated by a random word generator and it just happens to coincide with an existing word. Right. . . .

WTF does that mean?

What about "secular?" Isn't that a nonnegative linguistic term?

BigBadShrubbery

I really love the word "Infidel", and "Bright" just doesn't sound right (no pun intended).