Mediancat

It certainly isn't as annoyingly cutesy, and it doesn't come from whole cloth, true; but I still don't think it's NECESSARY.

Rob aka Mediancat

sodium

Perhaps, but it seems to me that Bright was supposed to create the sense of a movement, one that some people would identify with. One that could claim to have some shared values, and have common goals. And where, eventually, representatives of Brights could have a place at the "civic table", as mentioned on the Brights web-site.

Now, here I am uncertain, but it seems to me that those non-believers who don't consider themselves Humanists will generally fall into one of two categories,

1) They hold views which are quite different than mainstream society, and most other non-believers. Here I am thinking of Communists, Fascists and Nihilists, for example. That is, people who it would be hard to form a movement with, because their values are so different, and because they will tend to discredit the movement in the eyes of mainstream society.

2) People who don't want to be considered part of a movement. They don't want to be considered Brights. They don't want any group that purports to speak on their behalf.

And my conclusion is that it doesn't do any good to try to form a movement containing these groups. You can't make people part of a movement just by defining them into it.

ashe

It is necessary for some people, apparently. For that reason, I would like to give Reasoner a try. Unfortunately, I cannot have articles published as Dawkins can.

ashe

I would actually be quite happy with freethinker but apparently it has become too general.

I feel that while freethinker has (as the Brights also maintain on their site) developed a counterculture feel [edit: is this generally felt to be true, or is this another meme from the brights?], Reasoner is much more specific and therefore if you were to use this term you would not automatically be identified with elements of society perceived as radical, but rather with rational thought which is generally perceived as a useful skill. [edit: or is it?]

And, as with the Brights' scheme, if you chose to identify as a Reasoner, you could still specifically identify yourself as a humanist atheist, if pressed.

Toto

The Bright Stuff {groan} requires free registration

Viti

Hey Sodium...in my experience, Objectivists would not consider themselves or label themselves Humanists. These are specifically who I was thinking of when I said not all non-believers are Humanists, though Satanists and Nihilists etc are also in that group

openeyes

This is a link to a column in the NYTimes today, in case you didn't make the connection, that talks about being a "bright". Good reading, even if you don't like the term.

viscousmemories

I agree that it's nice to read an article that shines a positive light on people who hold a naturalist worldview. Even so I think the emphasis on the "new word" is a nauseating detriment. I can't help but notice how the author of the article is already trying to subtly mold the definition of the Bright(tm) term to fit his idea of what a Bright(tm) should be, by saying: So now "agressive atheists" don't qualify as Brights(tm)? On the other hand, I consider myself an "agressive atheist", so I suppose I should welcome any comment that further separates me from this pathetic idiocy.

vm

sodium

Dennet was just making an observation about most Brights, not imposing a new criterion. It seems to me that Dawkins would qualify as an agressive atheist (whether he actually turns every conversation to atheism or not), and he and Dennett are the most vocal advocates of the new word.

This bright thing is beginning to grow on me. I would still prefer to call myself a Humanist or a Materialist, and then explain what that means, than to call myself a Bright, and have to explain that. But if Bright comes into common use, it wouldn't bother me.

But since we're throwing out suggestions, what about "unbeliever" as a term for a metaphysical naturalist. This is a convenient term because

1) The believers aren't likely to want to claim it. I don't see Christians wanting to claim to be unbelievers, but they might want to claim to be Reasoners, Freethinkers, and would certainly claim to be bright, if not Brights.

2) It suggests other related and useful terms. A believer is someone who isn't an unbeliever. Unbelief is what we advocate.

3) It's close, although not exactly the same as the existing meaning of the word. Usually "unbeliever" means someone who doesn't believe in a particular supernatural or religious entity. But it could also be used to mean someone who doesn't believe in any of them. Which is how I'm suggesting the term could be used.

4) As a result, people will be be able to more-or-less understand it from context. If someone asks you what your religion is, and you say that you're an unbeliever, they'll probably get the point. But if you say you're a Bright, they won't know what you're talking about.

David M. Payne

Which gives you the opportunity to explain just what a "bright" is. I see the valid points in both the pro and con arguments here, and I myself wish that the word freethinker was "our" word to use to describe those of us that are atheists, agnostics etc, but it too has negative connotations.

"What is your religion?"
"I don't believe in religion, I'm a freethinker."
"And your saying I'm not capable of free thought because I believe in God?"

So all the words we use to try and differentiate ourselves from the majority of this world who believe in fairy tales will have some negative connotations. If Bright makes it into the popular language as a reasonable description of non-believers, good for it. If it gets theists to ask us just what it means, even better.

David