the Bright's movement?
If you don't know, it's a social movement created by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003 to promote public understanding and knowledge of a naturalistic worldview.
They want to coin the term "Bright" for a person with a naturalistic worldview, such as atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and naturalists, instead of the word "godless".
I know some atheists(like Christopher Hitchens) don't like the term because they think that it's almost cocky.
What do you think?
2007-10-08 07:24:32 · 32 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think it's a cocky term too, but I did sign up on their site as Leviathan did.
I think it's good to support and educate people about a naturalistic worldview, so that people don't end up thinking that everyone who doesn't believe in a god are just satan worshipping, immoral demons.
2007-10-08 07:47:54 · update #1
Opposed.
It implies that others are not bright and that's too confrontational to be a voice for change.
Humanist, or free-thinker works for me. Or no label at all.
2007-10-08 07:33:01 · answer #1 · answered by blooz 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't find calling one's self a "Bright" any more cocky or pretentious than Christians who claim that everything they say is the truth and they have some direct line to the creator of the universe.
I don't have a lot of exposure to the Bright movement so i can't really speak to the way they portray themselves other than by their name. I think it's good to have groups that support and promote a naturalistic world view, and show the world that one can have a moral standard without some imaginary deity to pin it on.
2007-10-08 07:32:52 · answer #2 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yuck! I don't think public relations scams are the way forward. The first time I heard the term "Brights" I was immediately offended -- even before I knew it referred to atheists like myself, and others with a naturalistic worldview. While there is statistical evidence to support that atheists, et.al. are more intelligent and better educated than the norm, it is a mistake to rub our opponents noses in it. As soon as we start calling ourselves "Brights," we begin to imply that everyone else are "Dims." I don't see this as progress.
2007-10-08 07:46:46 · answer #3 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Godless works for me because I don't believe in a god. I don't like the fact that they want to lump everyone that doesn't believe in a god into a movement. That means that all believers in Jainism are also "Bright". I think they prefer to be known as Jains. They are one of the oldest religions that are known. I'm not an atheist because I want to be different. I'm an atheist because I do not believe that there is anything more to life. I enjoy being me, I enjoy treating others well. I love being a good person. I just don't believe in gods
2007-10-08 07:33:29 · answer #4 · answered by Porkchop Jones 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mixed feelings.
I don't think its cocky exactly, I asked them if theists were called 'dim's' in this system (lol) and they said no.
I don't think atheists should have a term at all - even atheist - after all if you're learning about any classification system a sound rule is that you should not label something by describing what it is NOT. To give an example, consider that oak trees are invertebrates.
If humanity gave up superstition atheist wouldn't mean much anymore. We don't have a word for someone who doesn't believe in fairies, do we?
I did sign up on their site (http://www.the-brights.net/), but only as a vote of solidarity about atheism itself, not because I think we should really be called Brights. It sounds a bit wishy-washy and new age.
2007-10-08 07:28:45 · answer #5 · answered by Leviathan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think "bright" sound pompous, and insinuates that people who believe in a higher power are dull.
How about "Humanist" "Secularist" "Naturalist" or any number of other terms already available to describe people who do not believe in any deity ?
2007-10-08 08:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by queenthesbian 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm an atheist, and I don't particularly like the term "Bright". It is a word that I associate with people saying that someone is smart, so it makes me thing that it is a group of atheist Mensa members.
I'm OK with the term "atheist", though I understand they are trying to get away from having to refer to god or religion at all - we should be able to describe ourselves positively, not in a negative term implying that we are anti-god or against-religion.
2007-10-08 07:37:01 · answer #7 · answered by daisy mcpoo 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ridiculous to call ourselves Brights. That is a term already used to describe someone who is unusually intelligent.
I think it will be interpreted by the public as suggesting that we think that people that don't agree with us are stupid.
Let's not give them one more reason to hate us.
2007-10-08 07:33:43 · answer #8 · answered by Robin W 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sounds fruity and gay to me. I don't base my life on weirdos trying to create an atheist religion. Anyways, humanists are mostly jerk off hippies who cannot face the reality of the world.
They can call me godless all they want, I don't give a ****
2007-10-08 07:31:53 · answer #9 · answered by ST 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think the word Bright is already use to describe idiots. I like it. but that's just an Atheists view.
2007-10-08 07:36:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋