Guest god of the gaps Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 does anyone else think that the "brights" movement backed by the likes of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins is irresponsibly and irreconcilably arrogant? while i don't necessarily disagree with the views of the movement, i can't help but condemn any human referring to itself as a "bright." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Heh - yeah, it does ring of a little self-righteousness. I embrace Satanism and respect the Church of Satan, but they could do to lose some of the so-called "elitism" they think they possess. No amount of more palatable opinions or positions makes arrogance any more pleasant. But, better Bright arrogance than Xian arrogance. The Brights, I'd think, can grow past that, whilst most fervent Xians still haven't developed any of the humility they claim to defend so strongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Knight Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Heh - yeah, it does ring of a little self-righteousness. I embrace Satanism and respect the Church of Satan, but they could do to lose some of the so-called "elitism" they think they possess. No amount of more palatable opinions or positions makes arrogance any more pleasant. But, better Bright arrogance than Xian arrogance. The Brights, I'd think, can grow past that, whilst most fervent Xians still haven't developed any of the humility they claim to defend so strongly. Stole the words from my mouth. Im not sure any religion (save for maybe a few) can get as arrpgant as Xianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 A little arrogant from what I've seen of them, they should have picked a more clever name "brights" makes me think of indigo children. I know, not quite the same thing but yeah even the name screams arrogance. They're definitely not the only group who has that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftofpunk Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Which is why if I were to formally and officially subscribe to a philosophy it'd be humanism. It's simple and to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disEnchanted Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 The brights chose their name to reduce the negativity of the word atheist. As you know so many people think atheists = satanists. Homosexuals did this years ago when they chose "gay" to describe themselves. Just has a nicer ring to it. Besides, the brights call the christians "supers". See, they aren't necessarily trying to be superior to people who believe in the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Or is that "super" as in "superstitious"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Or super as in they act like they're "superior"? I don't know why but every time I think of brights I think of the indigo child, I really don't get it...and then I start thinking about those crazy cult members smiling (that really creepy smile that they do that makes it look like they're no longer human, but rather a walking zombie...only creepier, A happy zombie that spreads peace and love). Okay, it's probably just me, it's really weird I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disEnchanted Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Supers could be believers in the supernatural or the superstitious. Aren't those two closely related anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_funkenstein Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I definitely think that there should be a term that differentiates someone who has embraced critical free-thinking and rejects the notion of the supernatural. Using the word "bright" implies that such people are more intelligent than others, however I was just as intelligent as I am now when I was a theist so I don't think it's very apt. I don't see what's wrong with atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Another acronym to add to one's name to help impress those impressed with more acronyms.. "Skip'nChurch, BolognySalmaiSLam, PhiledHigher%Deeper, Bah dehar, AA, BZ, BG, VX, GAS&FART, bright, and swordmaker..." Wow, still another system, another club to join, almost in a religious undertone to try to adjust to.. Another social contract to try and adhere to.. k, hater of the social contracting, FL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I have not looked into the group myself, but the name feels silly to me. Can't take a name like that seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Ugh. I'm sorry, but the smell of bullshit about them is straight-out repulsive. Christian or not, a group of arrogant pricks are arrogant pricks. Really, all the "brights" are good for is driving my face into my palm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Ubermensch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Supers could be believers in the supernatural or the superstitious. Aren't those two closely related anyway? From a scientific point of view, both are the exact same thing. Grammatically they are used slightly differently, since you could say "nothing supernatural exists" and "it is superstitious to believe in the supernatural." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 I have not looked into the group myself, but the name feels silly to me. Can't take a name like that seriously. Yeah, same here. I think that's why most atheists haven't embraced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 I just can't help but laugh at all these people who keep trying to create non-believer organizations. You'd think the fact the very act of becoming non-believers was what led most of these people out of previous organizations would be a clue. Still, I suppose the world needs would-be cat herders to entertain the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smellincoffee Posted July 15, 2007 Share Posted July 15, 2007 I joined the Brights movement about the same time that I joined this forum. Some time went by between the day I registered at their forums and registered as a Bright. I don't know why but every time I think of brights I think of the indigo child, I really don't get it...and then I start thinking about those crazy cult members smiling (that really creepy smile that they do that makes it look like they're no longer human, but rather a walking zombie...only creepier, A happy zombie that spreads peace and love). Okay, it's probably just me, it's really weird I know. This was the main reason why; I distrusted the perkiness of the name. I also thought it sounded a bit elitist. But I stuck around on the forums and eventually realized that they were all sane and fairminded individuals. I wrote an article on being a Bright to explain why I chose to register as a Bright. I encourage those of you who don't know what to think of the Brights to read it; I hope it'll help bring forth some understanding here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Oh, I know what the Brights are about, I just don't feel any need to join them for much the same reason I don't feel any need to join any other organization I may fit in with. One of the primary reasons I forsook religion is I'm just not much of a "joiner." It's been my experience few non-believers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Smellingcoffee, I followed your link, and a few more links. I read an article by Richard Dawkins about why bright is a better term than atheist. Like you mentioned, he says that the word "gay" was chosen by homosexuals to give a better impression of the concept. So far as I can see it doesn't work. It just darkens the word "gay." I never knew how come gay was connected with male homosexuals. I assumed it was slang. And it certainly doesn't give me a gay feeling in the sense of being happy. Why? Because most people mean "dirty and immoral" when they use the term. I like the word homosexual because it says what it means, unambiguously. I've seen other words go through the same kind of metamorphosis. Meanings, how people feel about certain things, exist. You know: A rose called by any other name would still smell just as sweet. An atheist by any other name would still be despised by Christians. When I see your "are you a bright" I automatically add the word "syndrome"--as in Bright's Syndrome. Don't know if there is such a thing but there's lots of stuff I don't know. On the gut level I am seriously disappointed that Dawkins identifies as a bright. It's stupid, I know, but like I say there's gut-level meanings and nuances that are not easily overcome. At least I now know what the term means. And I like the meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 One more point. I cannot identify as a bright because I understand it absolutely rules out mysticism. So far as I can figure out, mysticism is not supernatural or religious. It's just a feeling we get depending what part of our brain is stimulated. It feels like we're on a different level of reality. Some people may seldom if ever get it but for me it has a soothing, calming effect. I suspect its the release of a certain chemical on the brain and I know it's natural. I just don't know what it's called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Oh, I know what the Brights are about, I just don't feel any need to join them for much the same reason I don't feel any need to join any other organization I may fit in with. One of the primary reasons I forsook religion is I'm just not much of a "joiner." It's been my experience few non-believers are. I won't argue that you're not a joiner except how come you're on here? Apparently you do join things. There are lots of nonreligious people who join more social stuff, too. Look at the extensive networks of humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, brights, etc. around the world. If nonreligious people were by default non-joiners, these organizations could not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 There is a school of thought that 'gay' comes from polari. It was certainly currency in the (illegal) scene of the 1940s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 and if one learns anything from the religous experience... there is power in numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 I won't argue that you're not a joiner except how come you're on here? Apparently you do join things. In all my life, I can count on one hand the number of organizations I've joined and continually participated in voluntarily. I didn't say "I'm not a 'joiner,' period." I merely said I'm not much of one. There are lots of nonreligious people who join more social stuff, too. Look at the extensive networks of humanists, freethinkers, skeptics, brights, etc. around the world. If nonreligious people were by default non-joiners, these organizations could not exist. Aye, those organizations are out there. I don't deny that. However, compare the roster of even the most populous "freethinker" organization to that of the (D/R)NC. Or the RCC. Or the NRA. Or BACA. Or, hell, the National Boating Association. Non-believers are fully capable of organizing into collective groups, but that wasn't my point. While they certainly can should the mood take them, the numbers seem to indicate most choose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts