Kirangel Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 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. My world view isn't exactly free of supernatural and mystical elements so the group wouldn't be for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Bright's Disease used to be a super-classification of Kidney disorders, but it's not used in modern medicine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Bright's Disease used to be a super-classification of Kidney disorders, but it's not used in modern medicine... So there was something by that name at some time in the past? If so, might have come across it sometime since I learned to read, and it would have left a negative impression as something I hope not ever to contract. Dunno. Many associations in my brain and I can't trace all of them to their origin. I guess that just happens as one gets older and accumulates more impressions. Brain can't hold it all anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 In all my life, I can count on one hand the number of organizations I've joined and continually participated in voluntarily. Oh I see. Me neither. Except for forums. I've joined on a lot that I posted only once and lost interest. But not social stuff. 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. I don't know what all those acronyms stand for. I guess RCC stands for Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn't imagine anything can compete with them when it comes to numbers. Would you happen to know percentages or what proportion non-believers join social organizations compared to what proportion of RCC members attend church? Or some other stats to prove your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 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'm not a joiner either, woody. I am, however, sympathetic to the aims and aspirations of the Brights, American Atheists, Rationalist societies, etc. I even went to a Rationalists of East Tennessee meeting once to hear the AA president speak. It was thrilling to be in the same room with so many like-minded people. It was beautiful, but I have felt no desire to attend since that day. Sometimes I feel like I am letting others do the heavy lifting: Michael Newdow, Madeline Murray O'Hair, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. Part of it is that I am not a joiner, but I'm afraid part of it is that I lack the self-sacrificial component of courage that would enable me to be a more active proponent of tolerance. Apart from the occasional letter to the editor on church/state issues, I am a passive nonbeliever. I'm not in the closet, but my shades are drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Bright's Disease used to be a super-classification of Kidney disorders, but it's not used in modern medicine... So there was something by that name at some time in the past? If so, might have come across it sometime since I learned to read, and it would have left a negative impression as something I hope not ever to contract. Dunno. Many associations in my brain and I can't trace all of them to their origin. I guess that just happens as one gets older and accumulates more impressions. Brain can't hold it all anymore. It's the CoD of my Uncle who died in 1959. He had a form, I believe of viral Nephritis (there was a minor 'mystery' bug thing that swept the UK in the period 1957-59. It did seem to kill people who had a weakness of 'odd things'. Subsequent to the Einsteinium contamination of the major part of the UK and part of Belgium during the Windscale reactor fire, but that's just a coincidence, of course ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 In all my life, I can count on one hand the number of organizations I've joined and continually participated in voluntarily. Oh I see. Me neither. Except for forums. I've joined on a lot that I posted only once and lost interest. But not social stuff. 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. I don't know what all those acronyms stand for. I guess RCC stands for Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn't imagine anything can compete with them when it comes to numbers. Would you happen to know percentages or what proportion non-believers join social organizations compared to what proportion of RCC members attend church? Or some other stats to prove your point? (D/R)NC = Democratic/Republican National Committee RCC = Roman Catholic Church NRA = National Rifle Association BACA = Bikers Against Child Abuse Though I believe I went a bit too far with that last post. While it's certainly been my experience most non-believers seem to abstain from organizing, I don't have any kind of statistical evidence on which to base that claim beyond the anecdotal, so I'll have to recall that statement. I'm not a joiner either, woody. I am, however, sympathetic to the aims and aspirations of the Brights, American Atheists, Rationalist societies, etc. I even went to a Rationalists of East Tennessee meeting once to hear the AA president speak. It was thrilling to be in the same room with so many like-minded people. It was beautiful, but I have felt no desire to attend since that day. Sometimes I feel like I am letting others do the heavy lifting: Michael Newdow, Madeline Murray O'Hair, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. Part of it is that I am not a joiner, but I'm afraid part of it is that I lack the self-sacrificial component of courage that would enable me to be a more active proponent of tolerance. Apart from the occasional letter to the editor on church/state issues, I am a passive nonbeliever. I'm not in the closet, but my shades are drawn. I had intended to add something in reply to this, but in all honesty I can't think of anything. You just described my own feelings perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
essence Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I prefer the term Atheist. The term "Brights" was used to identify lepers and lepersy years ago due to the bright spots on skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts