Love Dawkins, BUT I am uncomfortable with referring to oneself as a 'bright', it smacks of referring to oneself as an ALPHA. Thoughts?

Views: 373

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is a problem. I reluctantly call myself a bright, but it really does have an arrogant ring to it.
by the way, I think this might belong to one of the other forums.
I am new here, so dont quite know the forums yet, which should forever confirm that I am not a 'bright' LOL
I've avoided the title for the same reason. There's an air of smugness in it that I'm not comfortable with. I think it really comes down to how you self identify and semantics.

I don't think badly of people that choose to use's just not for me.
Agreed, it is useful by way of distinction, to distinguish freethinkers from others, but I agree with your point that it sounds smug
I agree. Although I would consider myself a Bright, I can't use the term without feeling pretentious. For now I stick with atheist, humanist or non-religious depending on who I'm talking to.
Yes, and I also like 'freethinker'
The problem with the term freethinker is that it doesn't rule out some of superstitions in many peoples mind.
Do you mean that evidence should be the threshhold and hence superstitions would make one not a freethinker? HA I don't know if what I just said makes sense!!
Freethinker just means someone who is free of thought; and it can be anyone who thinks differently, even someone believing in ghosts ;)
Or someone just willing to entertain the existence of ghosts?
I agree about labels, OT but particularly when it comes to kids I think labels are inhibiting. I don't mind labeling myself as an atheist because that means one thing and one thing only.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service