• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Brights" essay

billydkid said:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38

I too think it is a mistake for skeptics to adopt this moniker. I think it is pretentious and self congradulatory in the way that some believers are self congradulatory. I am and individualists and do not like lumping myself in.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree.

I think I fit the "official" definition of Bright, but I won't own up to the label. It sounds like we're a psychic elite, almost Lafayette Ron Hubbard style.

F*** that!
 
In my opinion, it is pretty desperate to actually admit to purposefully desiring to spread a meme.

I do also think that probably better choices exist instead of "Bright". It is not totally bad, just a little awkward, and probably unneeded.
 
billydkid:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=38
Click to expand...
Quoting from that article:

Jeremy Stangroom: What this means for the brights idea is that the criterion of a naturalistic worldview ... is no guarantee that people will not be committed to beliefs, or sets of beliefs, <span style="background-color: #ffc;">which are beyond rational scrutiny</span> in the same way as are many of the beliefs which are associated with theism. Possibly the supporters of the brights movement will not deny this, ...
Click to expand...
Interesting. Not only does James Randi seem to deny this, but as I remarked in an earlier thread, he seems to be actively promoting the notion of "brights'" as exclusively rational thinkers in his July 18 Commentary:

James Randi: Two weeks ago, I ran a notice that Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, both of Sacramento, California, worked on the definition of the noun "bright" to define a person who <span style="background-color: #ffc;">depends on evidence, reason, and logic, for decision-making</span> — as opposed to dogma, superstition, and mythology, that is.
Click to expand...
Edited to add: This is certainly not the official definition of the label "bright". Have I missed something here?
 
Traveller says this term won't spread like people with huge egos want because lots of skeptics and non-skeptics are saying **** that bright **** bitch.
 
Well, that word "Bright" is going to be associated with arrogance now.

Sucks.

Need a better word....

Like?

Realist? Is that too arrogant as well...

We have h umanist, a theists, n aturists, a gnostics, f ree-thinkers, and s keptics.

Hmm.

hanafs humanist atheist naturalist agnostic free-thinking skeptic
shanfa
shanaf
fashna
snafah
shafna
fanahs
fansah free-thinking athiest naturalist skeptical agnostic humanist
hafans

Or just

fans Free-thinking atheist naturalist skeptic

I vote for F. A. N. S. :cool:
 
Except that "fans" is current short-hand for science fiction readers who socialise with each other and may attend conventions. You need to find something which isn't already spoken for.

Now I tested with an IQ of 161, and they used to call me "bright" as a result. I've just got back from an SF reading group, and am usually considered to be a "fan". I'm on this board because I hate people who con other people with false paranormal claims, especially quack medical claims, with a fiery passion.

However, I'm a Christian. I can't see any point in arguing the toss here, but there are plenty people who scoff at magic and all sorts of tawdry woo-woo who nevertheless don't consider religion to be irrational. And there are plenty of very deep thinkers and philosophers who would agree with them.

Now, because of this, you want to deny me both the label "bright", and the label "fan", both of which have been mine up to now.

Hey, what's wrong with rationalist or naturalist anyway?

Rolfe.
 
Hmm, maybe religious skeptics can have a name all their own. Why not? You don't want to call yourself something that is linked to atheism, or you'll be mislabeled as an atheist.

Fans is the same as F. A. N. S.

Ah well. not like I'm going to starting any kind of movement. Just a suggestion.

I thought you didn't like 'brights', and would be pleased not to be a complete definition of one.

Otherwise,
Anything that atheist skeptics try to make their own will probably be seen as taking it away from everyone who is not an atheist skeptic.

Naturalist kinda reminds me of nudists
:roll:

Rationalist will be seen as accusing people who don't fit the new description as irrational...meaning christians will feel they are being called irrational in the same way as not being 'bright' makes them being called 'dumb'.

I don't think the atheist skeptical humanist will ever just have a name all their own.


Hmm. A.S.H. or H. A. S. ?
 
:rolleyes: No, I'm just tired of feeling isolated in the middle of a town fool of woo woos and woo woo worshippers that think irradiation will ruin all of our food and vaccines make kids stupid.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
I thought you didn't like 'brights', and would be pleased not to be a complete definition of one.

Rationalist will be seen as accusing people who don't fit the new description as irrational...meaning christians will feel they are being called irrational in the same way as not being 'bright' makes them being called 'dumb'.

Hmm. A.S.H. or H. A. S. ?
Click to expand...
I don't like the hijacking of the word "bright" because it means I can't have that word used of me any longer if this catches on, or use it of anyone else without the risk of implying that they're an atheist.

I don't have any problem with the above use of "rationalist" - it has a long and honourable pedigree of that usage, and is listed in my (small, pocket) dictionary to that effect ("practice of treating reason as basis of belief and knowledge"). Any religious person would readily concede this usage, for that reason, and because they would agree entirely that accepting a religious world-view involves a "leap of faith" which may well be regarded as beyond reason.

In fact naturalist is technically the best one (belief that the "natural world" is all that there is?), but I take your point about nudism, and also in the dictionary "naturalist" is listed as "student of natural history", which is something else again.

So I'm inclined to label you as "rationalist", citing the dictionary as justification, until something else (hopefully not involving offending any other group or hijacking words already needed for other things) gains general acceptance.

Er - Action on Smoking and Health? HAS-been?

Rolfe.
 
Good points. So, any suggestions other than rationalist?

HAS-common sense :D

HAS- a brain
HAS- kids
HAS- a kitten
not so bad.


Rash...ha ha...rationalist atheist skeptical humanist...LOL!

I think they are working on the word brights to be broken down, I don't remember how though.

B
Rationalist
I
G
Humanist
T


I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
 
Re: Who Kant tell a lie?

hammegk said:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153

I've missed the successful attack on Kant's basic ideas. Maybe on some other board?
Click to expand...

From the article (by Dinesh D'Souza)
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.
Click to expand...
And there is your strawman. I don't know anyone who thinks we'll eventually find out everything there is to know. Even if there is no theoretical limit to what we can learn through rational means, there is also no limit to what there is to discover. That makes for a practical situation that we'll never know everything.

There you have it. Kant (D'Souza) debunked. That wasn't hard.

In the end, this argument depends on what a theist always must resort to, argument from ignorance and God of the gaps. According this this argument, your "5 senses" give you only an approximation of reality, so let's cross the gap with a leap of faith.
 
Re: Re: Who Kant tell a lie?

hgc said:


There you have it. Kant (D'Souza) debunked. That wasn't hard.
Click to expand...
Convinced yourself anyway, huh?


In the end, this argument depends on what a theist always must resort to, argument from ignorance and God of the gaps. According this this argument, your "5 senses" give you only an approximation of reality, so let's cross the gap with a leap of faith.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The only disagreement is that materialists/atheists have the same problem but choose not to admit it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Who Kant tell a lie?

hammegk said:

Convinced yourself anyway, huh?
Click to expand...
Well don't be offended if I don't submit myself to your judgement.
Agreed. The only disagreement is that materialists/atheists have the same problem but choose not to admit it.
Click to expand...
Here we go again. What's the leap of faith you're referring to? If your answer is that it's that there's any reality at all, then don't even bother.
 
LMAO! Uncarved! Unscathed...

IT is easier to find truth when you don't have an unproven supposition forced on you. When you are allowed to ask why and go in search instead of grasping on to the only known answer (which only leaves more questions unanswered).
 
In defense of "Brights"

Brights is not the perfect word, but until something better comes along, I'm going to stick with it. I agree with just about everyone's arguments against the term, but I can't come up with anything better. Michael Shermer tried, and he couldn't think of anything better either, so I'm in good company.

So I'm a bright until a better word comes a long. I'm also an atheist, agnostic, free thinker, secularist and humanist on occasion. I'm interested in Zen Buddhism, casino chips and running water. There's no one term that's going to completely describe me.

-Jeff Wagg
Richmond, VT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom