Belle

Where have you been ?! Don't you know you have a following here in the lower relm....uuumm boards?

Rusting Car Bumper

Besides the fact that memetics is pseudoscience, let me assume for a the moment that its not. You don't get to decide what the meme is. The meme could get turned into "brights" is a conspiracy to put a good face on an atheistic anti-god, anti-religious movement. If so, then its back to square one and in fact may make things worse if it becomes a paradigm for "exposing the secular conspiracy."

I strongly disagree here.

First, if you think Michael Newdow's media coverage and appearances were positive then I have an ocean barge in Kansas for sale. Michael Newdow was the worst thing to hit non-believers in the media since any one of MM O'Hairs appearances including when she called a sitting president a "son of a bitch."

Further, there are many more ways to get positive media coverage that do not involve silly schemes of nomenclature. (Oh is that not thoughtful.)

That can be done partly by changing how non-believers organize and what they do as a group. Without changing what we do and what we *are* then I don't really think a shallow dependence on a weak "memetic theory" is going to help.

A few years ago the Church of Freethought was in a CNN story about the state of atheism in America. If it wasn't for the Church of Freethought's appearance in the story (showing atheists as people concerned about the same problems as anyone else), atheists would have looked like nothing but a bunch of raving radicals carrying protest signs and shouting perjoritive statements.

Most non-belief groups do little except religious criticism and complain about C-S Seperation. As a result both non-believers and believers see this as what we are.

If non-belief groups got more involved with community affairs, charity, and actually applying our *positive* beliefs about humanity toward real problems then if memes are real then those actions would be more powerful than any name change.

Almost every media appearance by the Church of Freethought has been positive and two have been carried nationally. I am not suggesting that people form COFs. I am suggesting that because the group is explicitly about the positive side of non-belief and exploring those same issues and problems that *everyone* faces (except in this case fromt he point of view of non-belief) it then gets positive spin. If other non-belief groups were to drop their political spins and get into helping others and themselves then positive image woul abound. Not only that these groups would be genral positive role models.

Your response to the silly hyperbole aside, *no* atheist I know of personally who is aware of Bright supports it and that includes a few so called "leaders". That speaks volumes to me.

As for these few like Shermer, Dennet, and Randi who support it I'm not sure that means a lot.

They are not involved with the real issues that non-believers face on a day to day basis and they generally do not address them. They do not speak to the problems that non-believers face in getting along with believers. *THAT* is our key problem. It's great to debunk psychics and have "does god exist" debates but those things do not contribute to me getting along with believers and at when it comes to the debates merely pits us against them.

In fact, at a Shermer debate I asked Shermer about this. He demonstrated during the debate that they make little difference. I asked him during the Q&A that since this is the case then why not pop us an idea about how believers and non-believers can better get along. His response, "Go get pizza and beer" which got him a laugh but clearly demonstrated that he hadn't thought about it. I even went up afterward to ask him further and he just shrugged the question off.

These guys are highly insulated from ill effects. Last year, I did a Christian-Atheist dialogue (not a debate) with a Christian evangelist in a fundamentalist church in front of about 1000 people. Although I never got to use these incidents, I was ready in the Q&A for questions about discrimination and bigotry armed with descriptions of bigotry toward atheists. These included discrimination in the military, job discrimination, vandalism, and so on. I met Randi the same weekend I did this dialogue and the Shermer debate was a few weeks afterward. My impression is that these guys are insulated from these real effects of bigotry and as such they aren't really good representatives to give opinions on what will help the general standing of non-believers or "Brights" or whatever you want to call them this week.

Frankly, I am more interested in measures that have a direct impact on things (such as a kid who gets roughed up in school because he doesn't believe in God). Some parent or a kid who doesn't understand why other kids hate him says more about whether "Bright" is of any worth than a bunch of magicians or authors.

DC

[edited for grammar]

Viti

We have decided this has become a Secular Activism issue so we're moving the discussion there.

viscousmemories

I've noticed a number of people speculating on this and most have concluded that "dim" would be the logical opposite. This speculation, as it turns out, is unnecessary. It seems that the opposite of Bright™ is "religious", as the Brights™ themselves have explained here.
vm

Rusting Car Bumper

What they explain doesn't matter. You don't get to decide how its perceived. It may get perceived as "just another anti-religious movement" or "a movement designed to sugar coat non-believers true darker side."

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

What they explain doesn't matter. You don't get to decide how its perceived. It may get perceived as "just another anti-religious movement" or "a movement designed to sugar coat non-believers true darker side."

Further, many non-believers are and can be "Religious" so essentially what they've "explained" can be perceived as an insult to some non-believers.

DC

capsaicin67

My vote, albeit long:

*I think this a very important discussion that gets at the heart of issues that profoundly impact any number of other topics, concerns, and threads elsewhere on this BB and throughout Infideldom. I think the Mod rulings in facilitating this thread have been excellent as well--- avoiding over/under-reaction and recognizing the kernel [or larger] of substance that it carries, and allowing it to develop. IMHO.

*We're just talking about ideas and words here. They are significant, yes. But I don't take any notions surrounding this especially personally, though I have genuine and sincere interest in the outcome. It seems like there should be quite a lot of room left yet for people to debate and try new ideas, also. Mostly happening. But just sayin'. We're all mostly on the same side here but it is true that we have some distinctly different pov on the tack we need to take and where we are in fact heading.

*That being said,"Bright" does not strike me as optimal or even good strategy. Others have listed various concerns already, thoroughly. For me the flakiness/silliness and uncoolness seem striking, but it also does not bring a compelling utilitarian argument with it either.. It's a noble goal, but simply the wrong solution, IMO. And that's ok. Others may continue to pursue it as they evaluate it's potential more favorably, and as the dialogue continues to shape the situation. But I am going to suggest, respectfully, that it's just not going to be effective. They've got the cart before the horse. They selected a moniker that brings nothing but baggage to the table, and it's only benefits are it's one syllableness and that it's new. A noble effort, and great intentions, and that work need not be lost---but this is the wrong solution, that's all.

If it is effective it will only be through the sheer force of the famous/charismatic personalities promoting it. And that's cool if it happens, but my vote is that the label "Bright" is unlikely to reach any sort of critical mass in any manner that will significantly transform or improve things----however the debate, and refinement of the problem statement *might*.

No worries---go back to the drawing board. This, hopefully, is just the first step and they will be objective and humble enough to tweak and nurture and improve it. Again, just my opinion.

*Personally, I have less of a cringe-factor with Naturalist, Nontheist, Humanist, Infidel, or Reasonist [a slight modification of the earlier suggestion of "Reasoner"], even Freethinker. Perhaps history will mutate the movement into "Dawkinsonians" or "Dawkinsiens" [ala Lutherans}? I think that there is gobs of room to come up with better ideas, but the various factions of nontheism have lacked the commitment and focus to pursue them. >shrug< I hope they improve upon this track record in the near future. Hire some *serious* marketers and ad folks to explore and research and recommend. *Serious*. But that costs bucks. The community can't grow for want of capital, capital can't grow for want of community. What's a nontheist to do?

*Another thing is that all nontheists are not alike. I have been criticised before for identifying myself as an agnostic by a hard atheist [considered it indecisive, and philosophically/academically indefensible], as a nontheist by atheists generally [they shouldn't have to change etc], as a heathen by a Catholic [heathen is defined closely with both pagan and "irreligious"]. So on and so forth. Perhaps we need to keep our eye on the prize--- C/SS and a Nontheistic Co-op. That is, there are always going to different denominations of nontheist just as there are of theists. Theists have a lifeway that subscribes to a belief in one or more gods. Nontheists have one that springs from a lifeway that does not. And they both breakdown into thier various subsets from there. Dawkins and Randi et al wnat to start their own cult? Rock on. It doesn't work for me in the direction they are leading it, so I'll vote with my absence until that improves or another emerges.

But the key, in my mind is that C/SS and discriminatory and negative practices opposing reason and our lifeway, belief set, wordlview, universe view, value set, philosphy, metaphysics etc----nontheism and more critically, reasonism----are in jeopardy as long as we remain unfocused and divided and ineffective. Humanists, naturalists, agnostics, and the varied and sundry other denominations need to get their proverbial shit together in order to stem some of the very disturbing and counterproductive trends we see working to marginalize us, that we discuss daily on other threads etc.

*I really agree with the Digital Chicken on where the leverage points are at. The question that nontheism needs ---but does not have to---answer for the rest of the population is: but what are you for? Nontheists are both misunderstood as, and smeared as, indecisive and vague and without direction or committed values. Sure most of this is bunk. But it;s also true that people out there really don't know if you have to give up community, support, tradition, and values if you give up theism? And not all----but a goodly portion of humanity thinks these are useful or even necessary tools for society and civilization. When they have the best of intentions, they wonder who will facilitate providing and facilitating these services? Who and how will the general populace get counsel on the big philosophical questions, existential problems, and their emotional---not just material-- lives? People hunger for purpose, connection and meaning---and when one or more of these is lacking---anesthetization. Religion isn't wrong for recognizing a need in humanity and filling it---it's wrong in how it fills it.

Granted---there are a number of very strong personalities that function well independently of any metaphysical community supports, both nontheistic and theistic---but there are a whole lot of people that desire guidance and structure and reources to assist in meeting gtheir needs either until they grow past them, or for life.

*When the freethought community grows and develops the other pieces can better fall into place. There should be space for the mavericks that want minimal structure still. But there are perhaps many more that would see some benefit and fulfillment in being a part of a nontheistic, freethought denomination and part of a large, vibrant, growing, community, too? Is this possible without getting too political or just whacky? I think so. Right now nontheism only means "against theism" to the rest of the planet not identifying as such. If what they say matters at all-----and C/SS issue suggest at the very least that it does to most of us---we either say, "F**k off" to the majority concerns, or we can work to acknowledge what they do well, and do it better, minus what they do poorly. A vibrant community [not just individuals] of good neighbors and citizens working to bring constructive values to bear on the concerns of everyday life will transform every other facet exponentially, IMO.

viscousmemories

I realize that the definition of Bright™ will fluctuate and various contrasting terms will be ascribed and adopted by the mainstream over time. However, the intention of the originators of the word does matter. In fact the reason I pointed out that they contrast "religious" with "Bright™" is because to me it reveals that despite all their protestations to the contrary, they clearly have an underlying bias on the subject.

Later, I intend to go over every irritating word on their dreadfully pathetic website and cull every such contradiction I find, just to add more lines to my growing anti-Bright™ diary. (Which is sarcasm, btw. I am against the idea, and it has become a pet peeve of mine recently, but believe it or not I do have other things going on in my life beyond attacking this single stupid idea.)

vm

copernicus

Although the Brights are not religious, they are a de facto religious minority. That is, they should be treated and accepted as a legitimate component of society. When 52% of the American public says that they would not vote for a "well-qualified atheist", that should be characterized as a bigoted attitude. But it isn't. The press takes it as a perfectly normal attitude. If they were to treat jews or muslims in the same way, there would be howls of protest everywhere, yet the Brights are just as large a segment of the population.

This movement to euphemize "atheism" may not work, but it is a beginning. It is time that the fractious religious community moved aside and let us in as equal citizens.

viscousmemories

I respect your opinion, but you are using Bright™ and atheist interchangeably, which is erroneous. The Bright™ elders want it to be quite clear that you needn't be an atheist to be a Bright™.

This is yet another problem I have with the Brights™ movement. They are attempting to mobilize a huge segment of the population under a fairly arbitrary categorical delineation to support an as yet undefined political agenda. To wit:
I honestly just don't get it. They swear that the only common denominator among all Brights™ is a "naturalistic worldview", and yet they expect the whole group to have a similar political agenda? Frankly I prefer to know the agenda of a political organization before I sign up. But that's just me.

vm