• 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?

viscousmemories said:
As I just mentioned in a thread over at the Infidel's site, the Brights™ themselves use the term "religious" as the opposite of Bright™.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Is that really the dichotomy?
What about people who aren't necessarility religious, but who are agnostic about god (or don't care)? What about people who are not religious but who are into other spooky-ooky stuff like Ouija boards and Tarot cards? Are they Brights? New agers, pantheists, non-skeptical superstitious atheists, do they all default to Bright because they are not "religious"? It feels like a false dichotomy, where as the theist/atheist dichotomy is not false, because it means the same as theist/other.

On one hand I'm getting: A bright is someone with a natrualistic worldview.
On the other hand I'm getting: A bright is someone who is not religious.

This has the exact same ambiguity that atheist has. So what does the new word solve?
 
I'm reminded of a line from the movie "True Lies".....

"I've got a little dick - it's pathetic"
 
So, it's been a year now. How is the Bright meme coming along?

Still hate it? Does it still suck?

Does Randi still think it's a nifty idea?
 
As long as rationalists are so self-hating, the squirming will indeed continue.

Personally, I like the term Bright.
 
Another squirmer here. I'm a proud skeptic and all that, but to me, 'Bright' sounds unspeakably arrogant.
 
Thankfully it's dying a natural death.
Randi hasn't mentioned it for ages.

I'm reminded of line from another popular movie....

"Repeat after me: 'We are all individuals'. "
 
Ensign Steve said:
On one hand I'm getting: A bright is someone with a natrualistic worldview.
On the other hand I'm getting: A bright is someone who is not religious.
Click to expand...
There's no ambiguity. The Brights' website states explicitly that a bright is someone with a naturalistic worldview. Subscribers to the Occult are thus not included in the definition.
 
BillyJoe said:
Thankfully it's dying a natural death.
Randi hasn't mentioned it for ages.
Click to expand...
Just because Randi hasn't mentioned it doesn't mean it's dying. There are meetings of Brights around the world every month.
 
Kimpatsu said:
Just because Randi hasn't mentioned it doesn't mean it's dying. There are meetings of Brights around the world every month.
Click to expand...
Goddamn! Have they built a church yet?
 
BillyJoe said:
Goddamn! Have they built a church yet?
Click to expand...
A church isn't a building, it's a community. And we are building a global community of Brights. Does that qualify?
 
I'm a squirmer, I'm afraid!

Can we, in the spirit of mutual understanding, make the noun Bright™ more distinct from the adjective?

May I suggest requiring the noun to have the ™ symbol attached in print and to pronounce the word "bright-tee-em" in speech. This should avoid associations with the 'intelligent' meaning of bright, while giving the Brights™ their label.

N.B: The above is all purely tongue-in-cheek. I'll even put a smiley in: :D
 
Doc Dish said:
I'm a squirmer, I'm afraid!

Can we, in the spirit of mutual understanding, make the noun BrightEmore distinct from the adjective?

May I suggest requiring the noun to have the Esymbol attached in print and to pronounce the word "bright-tee-em" in speech. This should avoid associations with the 'intelligent' meaning of bright, while giving the BrightsEtheir label.
Click to expand...
Only if you agree to have the TM stamped on your arse... :p :D
 
Kinky! ;)

I can just imagine a visit to the proctologist in the future: "Why have you trademarked your sphincter?"

However, the 'quote text' facility can't cope with the symbol, so that's put the kybosh on that idea. To quote Marvin Martian "Oh well, back to the old drawing board"

This thread reminds me of the maxim that getting atheists to work together is like herding cats...
 
Doc Dish said:
I can just imagine a visit to the proctologist in the future: "Why have you trademarked your sphincter?"
Click to expand...
"I haven't, doctor; that's a bum rap."
Alternatively: "Jeffrey Archer copyrights his crap, so why shouldn't I?"
Other contributions welcome... ;) :D
 
Doc Dish said:
This thread reminds me of the maxim that getting atheists to work together is like herding cats...
Click to expand...
Good one, Doc :)
Now I know why I like cats.
 
Doc Dish said:

This thread reminds me of the maxim that getting atheists to work together is like herding cats...
Click to expand...

So, do you equate Brights with atheism?
 
And congratulations go to Kimpatsu for derailing this thread into a kind of Benny Hill-esque comedy skit :clap:

Although I'd like to have 'MG' stamped on my 'Gluteus Maximus' rather than 'tm'. Then anyone seeing it could say 'OMG'

Think about it ;)
 
Originally posted by tamiO: So, do you equate Brights with atheism?
Click to expand...

No, but I've never heard that "getting Brights™ to work together is like herding cats" Although I would imagine that it is equally true...

I, personally, see the definition of a Bright™ fitting within the definition of an atheist - some people consider Buddhists to be atheists, but Buddhists would hardly fit the definition of a Bright™
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom