im an atheist, but is this sort of like dominations among atheist/ agnostics? seperating the herd per se? by their definition I guess i would be coined as a bright. what do you think of this?
http://www.the-brights.net/
"Of course, a great many Brights are atheists by definition (e.g., they are without belief in any gods). Many self-identify as atheists, too. But, by the same token (i.e., by definition), atheists who have worldviews that do incorporate supernatural ideas are not Brights. It helps to keep those atheists in mind. This helps to see how being a bright is something else. There are the atheists who wear magnets to ward off disease, atheists who arrange their furniture using feng shui, or make decisions by horoscopes, or plant their gardens "by the signs." These are atheists who would not be Brights. They do not have the requisite naturalistic worldview. "
2007-08-30 03:12:17 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Im with you Chareth Cutestory. I shall be now known as an awesome!
2007-08-30 03:17:37 · update #1
According to their definition I am a Bright, but I feel no desire to make myself known as a "Brigh". There are much more important things to be known by, and joining an organisation jsut because it shares parts of my philosophy ... no, I can do other things with my time.
2007-08-30 03:22:33 · answer #1 · answered by Maria - Godmother II of the AM 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As I recall (this is going back a few years) the term "bright" was meant to remove the negative connotation inherent in a word that is an absence of something: a = without, theist = belief.
It seems that some have now taken it one step further. I guess it was bound to happen. I'm just sorry that it has. The only thing that atheists necessarily have in common is the absence of belief in any gods.
2007-08-30 03:25:34 · answer #2 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's human nature to name,categorize,classify,inter relate ,grade and interpolate or re arrange etc any data or information to enable him to deal with it. What your are trying is one of the above ie to grade Atheists based on a bench mark.No harm but you have to go deeper in to the subject and do it in a manner which is acceptable to others and has an approved methodology.
2007-08-30 03:25:10 · answer #3 · answered by brkshandilya 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe in any form of the supernatural but I would never call myself a "bright". At best, it sounds incredibly presumptuous and at worst, it sounds like a scary cult.
2007-08-30 03:23:37 · answer #4 · answered by The Son of Man 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm on their email list but I never read their newsletters. Haven't found much of interest to hold me.
I've attended a few humanist groups over the years. They often get too much into religion bashing for my tastes. I'd rather focus on something positive.
2007-08-30 03:37:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like a pointless attempt at forming an "atheism club" to me.
Why?
No, I wouldn't even qualify as a Bright and the name is retarded anyway.
Would gay Brights be Rainbow Brites?
2007-08-30 03:22:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
interesting. I guess all members of humanity need a "team" to belong to in order to feel exclusive or special. even some atheists need the validation of others to have meaning.
2007-08-30 03:25:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You see, I am a polytheist, and a scientist, and I do not believe in things that are not replicable...
But I'm a Wiccan, and they don't understand how so-called magical thinking is actually the most naturalistic of all.
2007-08-30 03:20:41 · answer #8 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not a Bright as I believe in a lot of mystical beliefs, like spirit guides, astral travel, and mediums.
2007-08-30 03:17:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why do you have label yourself. Just go pour some Vodka and take a Z Bar.
2007-08-30 03:19:47 · answer #10 · answered by Mommie Dearest 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋