-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Who squirms at the word bright?
- Thread starter komencanto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- squirms
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
That's why it's been coopted: to raise your consciousness. I hate describing myself as an "atheist", not only because it sounds stuffy as Richard Dawkins wrote, but also because, like Douglas Adams described, too many people try to correct me all the time: "Oh, you mean an agnostic". No, I bloody well don't! Now, that's arrogant: assuming I can't select le mot juste for myself. Nor do I want to take the Adams line in calling myself a "militant atheist" to offset the inevitable "Oh, you mean agnostic" reaction, because "militant" sounds... well, too militant. I know the Abrahamic god doesn't exist, so I really need a single, short, sharp, snappy word to describe myself. Bright will do just fine.
If you're happy with it, then more power to you. But "Bright" is not just another word for atheist. You realize that right? And if you're tired of people trying to correct you now, imagine how much fun you'll have with:
"No I don't mean I'm smart, well yes, I do think I'm smart, but that's not what I mean now. I have a naturalistic worldview."
"So you're an atheist?"
"Yes. I mean no. I mean that's not all that it means. I mean..."
You feel uncomfortable with it?
yup
That just means your consciousness hasn't been raised yet.
I'll risk it.
Do you still squirm at "gay" as "homosexual"?
Nope. Never did.
Consciousness-raising is the name of the game, and I'm glad we've coopted such an upbeat word to describe our nontheistic world view. I am well and truly out of the closet. Mum, dad... I'm a bright!
Easy on the "we" there.
That's why it's been coopted: to raise your consciousness. I hate describing myself as an "atheist", not only because it sounds stuffy as Richard Dawkins wrote, but also because, like Douglas Adams described, too many people try to correct me all the time: "Oh, you mean an agnostic". No, I bloody well don't! Now, that's arrogant: assuming I can't select le mot juste for myself. Nor do I want to take the Adams line in calling myself a "militant atheist" to offset the inevitable "Oh, you mean agnostic" reaction, because "militant" sounds... well, too militant. I know the Abrahamic god doesn't exist, so I really need a single, short, sharp, snappy word to describe myself. Bright will do just fine.
If you're happy with it, then more power to you. But "Bright" is not just another word for atheist. You realize that right? And if you're tired of people trying to correct you now, imagine how much fun you'll have with:
"No I don't mean I'm smart, well yes, I do think I'm smart, but that's not what I mean now. I have a naturalistic worldview."
"So you're an atheist?"
"Yes. I mean no. I mean that's not all that it means. I mean..."
You feel uncomfortable with it?
yup
That just means your consciousness hasn't been raised yet.
I'll risk it.
Do you still squirm at "gay" as "homosexual"?
Nope. Never did.
Consciousness-raising is the name of the game, and I'm glad we've coopted such an upbeat word to describe our nontheistic world view. I am well and truly out of the closet. Mum, dad... I'm a bright!
Easy on the "we" there.
OK, it includes the fence-sitters, too. Maybe I should start describing myself as a "militant bright".mark tidwell said:
But I am an atheist, so I wouldn't deny that they were right. Just as "gay" covers the spectrum (or is that rainbow?) from male homosexual through lesbian to bisexual to transgender, so "bright" covers militant atheists, weak athesists, and agnostics.mark tidwell said:
See next response:mark tidwell said:
That just means your consciousness hasn't been raised yet.
This isn't a question of risk; you shouldcall us the name by which we decide. And that links nicely to:mark tidwell said:
Do you still squirm at "gay" as "homosexual"?
There you are. All this means is that your consciousness has been raised on gay rights, but not on atheist ones.mark tidwell said:
If you're an atheist or an agnostic, you're in the "we" camp. Of course, you might be a theist, but as we're the brights, what does that make you?mark tidwell said:
Except there is no correlation between being a bright and being bright. If you are going to argue otherwise, your new label is doomed.
You missed Mark's point. Many of us have not coopted the word "bright" to describe our world view. Even though I am an atheist, I am not in the "we" that you used in your comment.
The way you are misusing the label here is a major objection to the label. I offer Hal Bidlack as a counter-example to the notion that non-brights are not bright.Of course, you might be a theist, but as we're the brights, what does that make you?
If you can't even justify the new label to those of us who are potential "brights", how can you realistically expect to justify it to the "dims"?
I was being facetious in my use of "bright" opposed to dim. Dry British humour, don'tcha know...?
I wonder how many homosexuals disavowed the use of "gay" in the early days? "Hey, I'm not gay all the time; when I feel the weight of society's oppression, sometimes I feel downright depressed!"
The point about everyone's favourite deist (Mr. Bidlack, are you reading this?) is that he is dim on this one issue, because it's the one area of his life where he refuses to apply the same rigorous intellectual standards. He says, "I believe, and so there!" I wouldn't trust a jury to return a just verdict based on that criterion. The Blessed Hal applies critical thinking in all areas but this one. Why the double standard? Not very... bright, is it?
I wonder how many homosexuals disavowed the use of "gay" in the early days? "Hey, I'm not gay all the time; when I feel the weight of society's oppression, sometimes I feel downright depressed!"
The point about everyone's favourite deist (Mr. Bidlack, are you reading this?) is that he is dim on this one issue, because it's the one area of his life where he refuses to apply the same rigorous intellectual standards. He says, "I believe, and so there!" I wouldn't trust a jury to return a just verdict based on that criterion. The Blessed Hal applies critical thinking in all areas but this one. Why the double standard? Not very... bright, is it?
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
OK, it includes the fence-sitters, too. Maybe I should start describing myself as a "militant bright".
No. It does not include fence-sitters. Why are you championing a cause you don't even understand? The term Bright, does not refer to Atheists or Agnostics, but to those who have a completely naturalistic worldview, people who make no assumptions about the supernatural or unseen "powers". Atheists are the most obvious example of naturalists, but the terms are not synonymous.
If you're an atheist or an agnostic, you're in the "we" camp. Of course, you might be a theist, but as we're the brights, what does that make you?
I am an atheist, but I will never be a "Bright".
OK, it includes the fence-sitters, too. Maybe I should start describing myself as a "militant bright".
No. It does not include fence-sitters. Why are you championing a cause you don't even understand? The term Bright, does not refer to Atheists or Agnostics, but to those who have a completely naturalistic worldview, people who make no assumptions about the supernatural or unseen "powers". Atheists are the most obvious example of naturalists, but the terms are not synonymous.
If you're an atheist or an agnostic, you're in the "we" camp. Of course, you might be a theist, but as we're the brights, what does that make you?
I am an atheist, but I will never be a "Bright".
I'll ignore the personal dig, but if I ever meet you in a dark alley...mark tidwell said:
All you're saying is that atheists and agnostics are a subset of brights. I never said atheists and naturalists were synonymous, because "brights" includes agnostics as well. But what naturalists beyond atheists and agnostics are there?
If you're an atheist, you're a bright, whether you like it or not. BTW, when did "bright" become a proper noun? We don't capitalise "gay".mark tidwell said:
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Keneke said:
Shortest joke ever:
Pretentious? Moi?
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
All you're saying is that atheists and agnostics are a subset of brights.
No. I am not saying that. A person can be an atheist, but still believe in mediumship, telepathy, vampires, and astral projection. Such a person would not qualify as a "Bright".
I never said atheists and naturalists were synonymous, because "brights" includes agnostics as well. But what naturalists beyond atheists and agnostics are there?
No. Agnostics cannot be Brights. For Brights, agnosticism is a non-issue.
If you're an atheist, you're a bright, whether you like it or not. BTW, when did "bright" become a proper noun? We don't capitalise "gay".
No. I am not. As to your question, why not ask The Brights?
All you're saying is that atheists and agnostics are a subset of brights.
No. I am not saying that. A person can be an atheist, but still believe in mediumship, telepathy, vampires, and astral projection. Such a person would not qualify as a "Bright".
I never said atheists and naturalists were synonymous, because "brights" includes agnostics as well. But what naturalists beyond atheists and agnostics are there?
No. Agnostics cannot be Brights. For Brights, agnosticism is a non-issue.
If you're an atheist, you're a bright, whether you like it or not. BTW, when did "bright" become a proper noun? We don't capitalise "gay".
No. I am not. As to your question, why not ask The Brights?
Anybody who believes in mediumship or astral projection is by definition not an atheist, as these are "godly" qualities.mark tidwell said:
Of course agnostics can be brights. Re-read the article by Richard Dawkins.mark tidwell said:
I refer you once again to the article by Dawkins.mark tidwell said:
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Anybody who believes in mediumship or astral projection is by definition not an atheist, as these are "godly" qualities.
I know a few people who consider themselves atheists but also believe in mediumship. Please explain why belief in the supernatural presupposes a belief in a deity.
Of course agnostics can be brights. Re-read the article by Richard Dawkins.
I assume you're referring to this exerpt:
"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
But this is not consistent with the proferred definition in the same article,
"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
It is, in my opinion, an ill-considered term, with an ill-considered definition.
Agnostics, by definiton, simply don't know. They cannot claim that their worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements, because they make no claims at all in this regard. A Bright, by definition, does make this claim.
I refer you once again to the article by Dawkins.
And I refer you back to the one I referred you to to begin with. The Brights
Note the frequent capitalization.
Anybody who believes in mediumship or astral projection is by definition not an atheist, as these are "godly" qualities.
I know a few people who consider themselves atheists but also believe in mediumship. Please explain why belief in the supernatural presupposes a belief in a deity.
Of course agnostics can be brights. Re-read the article by Richard Dawkins.
I assume you're referring to this exerpt:
"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."
But this is not consistent with the proferred definition in the same article,
"A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."
It is, in my opinion, an ill-considered term, with an ill-considered definition.
Agnostics, by definiton, simply don't know. They cannot claim that their worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements, because they make no claims at all in this regard. A Bright, by definition, does make this claim.
I refer you once again to the article by Dawkins.
And I refer you back to the one I referred you to to begin with. The Brights
Note the frequent capitalization.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
mark tidwell said:
Also note that the orginal article to which Kimpatsu is talking about also refers us all to the same website that you did. (at the bottom) Did they do that with or without Dawkins' permission?
I also objected to the capitalization in the original thread here in this forum:
MattJ
Kimpatsu said:
Funny. I just conceded that. But you're sidestepping. "The supernatural" does not equal "God". Not by a longshot in a number of beliefs. I'll not name names out of respect, but ask this question in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal forum and see how many takers you get.