By definition I am a bright. However, I hate the name. Why are Brights not naturalists, which is more descriptive, accurate, and less cocky sounding. Where does the term come from and why do people like it?

Views: 934

Replies to This Discussion

see "The Pearlist Persuasion"
The others are jealous!

I agree Galen!

Bright Cheers Evolving!

Re Paul Geisert's comments above: Never have the Brights claimed superior intelligence to supers ("supers" are Daniel Dennett's suggestion in "Breaking the Spell" -- they are individuals who believe in supernatural forces).

I don't think much of Daniel Dennett's abbreviation "supers" for those who believe in supernatural forces.
They are better called "super-nats" or "super-gnats" because of super-gnat brains.

Brights may not claim superior intelligence, but many super-gnats think that is what Brights are doing.
Its this "us and them" antagonism that the new term and underlying movement are trying to avoid. Sure, religion is ridiculous. Calling everyone who happens to have religious belief names just offends them and makes them dig in. Show them alternative ways of seeing and quite a few who have never thought about it much can be swayed. Especially if they don't think they are giving up culture and community, merely exchanging.
see "The Pearlist Persuasion"
It is true that many "super-gnats" think Brights are claiming superior intelligence. However it is difficult to attempt to have them understand our point of view when they do not understand our reasoning for not believing what they believe. It is difficult for me to understand their point of view as well, as I have never had such a belief... in any supernatural entity existing. I guess I was just always raised to be rational in that way.
I just used the term in response to Dr. Meaden's use.

You just implied brights have superior intelligence by saying believers in the super natural have "gnat size brains."

I rest my case.

Policy #1:
"Brights should freely speak as Brights but, as they do, they must neither assert nor suggest that their views are representative of other Brights or that they are speaking for the constituency at large."


Meaden's rather unfortunate (in my view) and denigrating usage (and Dale's quote thereof) of the term "super-gnats" should not be taken as representative of any other bright or group of brights.  The Brights is meant to be a positive force in society  We should expect to get as good as we give, and I would think we'd all enjoy being afforded basic respect.

We had the Enlightment, so why not the Enbrightment? ;)
Remember this famous commercial from the 70's?

"Ultra Bright gives your mind...[bling] appeal!"
Or perhaps rather "Enbrightenment".

Now that is enlightening.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service