 |
| |
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
The adjective "bright" has found a new use as a noun, thanks to Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, co-directors of the Bright Movement. A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. This umbrella term includes humanists, sceptics, rationalists, atheists, agnostics, and anyone else who is free of reliance upon the supernatural for motivation or explanations. Enthusiastic proponents of the neologism include:
Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene.
Matt Cherry, Secretary of the United Nations NGO (non-governmental organisation) Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief and also an official NGO delegate to the U.N., representing the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).
Mel Lipman, president of the American Humanist Association.
Penn and Teller, entertainers.
Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine.
Richard Roberts, a 1993 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine.
Babu Gogineni, Executive Director of International Humanist and Ethical Union.
Sheldon Lee Glashow, a 1973 Nobel Laureate for Physics.
Amy Alkon, author of "The Advice Goddess" and "Ask Amy Alkon" newspaper columns.
If you have a naturalistic worldview, please visit http://www.the-brights.net/ to learn more about Brights. Be sure to sign up so you can be counted as a part of the international Bright constituency. You may even want to see if there will be Brights meeting in your area for the International Brights Meetup, Monday 22 September.
Your comments are more than welcome. Thank you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
No, I'm not a bright, I'm a goddam atheist.
That has to be pretty high up there in annals of monumentally stupid terms, when I read the editorial that announced this a while ago, all I could think of was...
Rainbow Brite
See the shining light
Yes I'm gonna take ya to Rainbow Brite
Starlite flies
Right before your eyes
And rainbow colors will cheer you up
Magic Light
Gonna take you for a ride...
 Attachment: rainbow.gif
This has been downloaded 81 time(s).
Last edited by Bosh on 11-09-2003 at 10:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Common misconceptions about Brights and their hopeful meme:
1. By calling ourselves Brights, we are calling people with other worldviews unintelligent.
People who aren't gay aren't necessarily sad. Men who don't join Promise Keepers aren't necessarily Promise Breakers. Bright, as a noun, means only "possessing a worldview that is naturalistic." There is no antonym for this new word, any more than there is an antonym for Brazilian or fish tank. As an adjective, bright has at least seven different meanings. Only one is "Animatedly clever; intelligent". That all of the meanings are more or less positive is not a bad thing as it would be foolish indeed to style ourselves the Dumbs or the Sleazies.
2. The Brights Movement seeks to convert people with religious affiliations to a naturalistic worldview.
At present, the main goal is to contact people with naturalistic worldviews and ask them to sign up to be counted in the international Bright constituency. At this time America is the focus, but all are invited. People with a religious affiliation who also have a naturalistic worldview are welcomed. In the longer term, the Brights Movement intends to create awareness, change the vocabulary of mainstream society, and increase the visibility of people who have a naturalistic worldview.
3. Bright is a synonym for atheist.
If the terms were indeed the same, there wouldn't be any point to coining a new one. Most atheists may be Brights, but not all Brights are atheists. Someone who rejected theism but believed in ghosts or a bearded elf who brings presents every December 25th would not be a Bright.
4. To sign up as a Bright one is expected to call oneself a Bright.
Many people who have signed on at http://www.the-brights.net/ prefer to call themselves atheists or agnostics, as can be seen via links on the page Meet Some Brights. While some have expressed outright dislike for "Bright" they apparently recognise the utility of the neologism and the value of being counted among those who share one of their most basic values. According to the latest information, thousands of Brights have registered and there are known Brights in 74 countries. All are recognised as individuals with something in common. Some, like myself, are enthusiastic and are spreading the news.
5. If I use the word Bright to describe myself I'll sound stuck-up, pretentious, or New Age.
Some might think I was pretentious if I refer to myself with technical or academic-sounding terms such as reductivist materialist or secular humanist. What matters is if I'm actually stuck-up or not. As for the charge that Brights are somehow part of New Age supernatural beliefs, the idea is obviously false.
6. Other terms, such as humanist, atheist, or rationalist, are better.
Bright is more inclusive. Brights include humanists but humans are not automatically a Bright's focus. Someone whose main interest is astronomy or microbiology and is free from superstition is also a Bright. Brights include rationalists but also include those who believe experience is a better teacher than reason. Some Brights are agnostics and some are atheists. Terms like atheist, godless, and unbeliever are negatives that focus on something missing, not to mention their heavy historical baggage. People who have decided to call themselves Brights have decided to refer to themselves by what they have, not what they do not.
7. Neologisms are doomed to failure.
When Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word agnostic in the Spring of 1869, he could not know if the term would catch on but he could see the need for it. Only time will tell if the new meaning of bright will catch on. For now, it's good to keep in mind that people easily adapt to new meanings for old words. Just count the "posts" in this "thread". We hope the new meaning is a "meme", which is an idea considered to replicate through a culture through imitation. If you're already familiar with the concept of a meme, think about how recently it entered the English language.
8. Brights are not persecuted and there is no need for unity.
It is a pleasant reality that people with a naturalistic worldview rarely suffer violent physical attacks. Unfortunately, the probable reason is that Brights are often invisible. Some communities are overwhelmingly religious and those who differ simply remain silent or pretend to conform. Desensitised to opinion pieces with titles like "Atheists have too much power in this country" (Sioux City Journal September 7, 2003), Brights sometimes don't notice that no credible publication would single out worldviews like Hinduism or Judaism as having too much power but Brights are fair game. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush stated in 1987 "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Imagine the backlash he would have suffered if he had directed that comment at a religion. Such a bigot would never have been elected. Sadly, since his bigotry was against an invisible and demonised minority, his attitude may even have helped his campaign.
Did you know:
In a survey published in the early 1980s, 71% of Americans thought that atheists speaking against religion should not be permitted use of civic auditoriums.
In the same survey, only 26% agreed that atheists should have the right to make fun of the religious no matter who was offended.
According to a 1999 survey by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) the anti-religious bias in media some theists see is simply not there. Quite the contrary: "Religion is one of the favourite cover subjects of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report." In a 1997 Time cover story titled "Does Heaven Exist?" not a single source said no.
The backlash is already beginning. Beliefnet, Inc. has issued two pieces critical of the Brights Movement. You can see one by Beliefnet co-founder Steven Waldman and the Brights' response for yourself under Essays at http://www.the-brights.net . I did a Google search for "naturalistic worldview" and an article which attempts to smear evolutionists as UFO nuts was the second highest result. Just as the term "secular humanist" was used as a weapon by those who would demonise us, so will "naturalistic worldview" and "Bright" if they are allowed.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2003 07:21
ACK!
|
