The Brights Movement: An Exercise in Self-Aggrandizement

[_Blixa]

The whole idea of an atheist movement gives me the willies. But calling its members "brights" just adds insult to injury. Blech...

[_Some Schmo]

The whole idea of an atheist movement gives me the willies. But calling its members "brights" just adds insult to injury. Blech...

It's not an atheists movement, it's a naturalists movement.

And all of this would be made very clear if everyone just went to their website and actually read their charter.

Reason and Purpose
Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed. To be a Bright is to participate in a movement to address the situation. (Note: the upper case Bright signifies someone who fits the definition and registers on this Web site.)

There is a great diversity of persons who have a naturalistic worldview (free of supernatural and mystical elements). Some are members of existing organizations that foster a supernatural-free perspective. Far more individuals are not associated with any formal group or label. Under the broad umbrella of the naturalistic worldview, the constituency of Brights can undertake social and civic actions designed to influence a society otherwise permeated with supernaturalism.

The movement's three major aims are:
1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

It's not an atheists movement, it's a naturalists movement.

I don't think this is accurate. But part of the problem here is that it is inaccurate because of the misleading nature of their description. More precisely, it is an atheist naturalist movement if we convienently forget the problems with providing a coherent definition of the term natural. The problem is that God is being categorized as "supernatural" by fiat such that theists who are naturalists and see God as a natural entity are not allowed. It's a group of atheists who in addition to not believing in God also do not believe in ghosts, witches, reincarnation, conscious energy, and so on and want to exclude the atheists who do as part of this more narrow category.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

O
The self-described Mormons claim that the church is true is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

No, saying the Church is true is not meant to imply anything about relative intelligence of members and non-members anymore than stating that water is H2O is meant as a commentary on intelligence.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

No more pretentious than a certain religious group calling themselves "Saints."

The term "saint" gets its positive connotation precisely because of its original definition in a religious context is seem as something desireable. If someone happens to meet that definition, it is no fault of their own that they enjoy the light of that connotation. By contrast, using the term bright to hijack its association with smarts is an effort to change the context to steal the desirable aspects of the label. Of course, Brights, or some of them at least, will say they just wanted a synonym for "sunny," but if you believe that I have some beautiful property in New Jersey I'm looking to sell you.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Shiny Happy Skeptics

I feel a Doc special coming on...


Shiny Happy Skeptics getting banned...
Shiny Happy Skeptics getting banned...
Shiny Happy Skeptics getting banned...
Shiny Happy Skeptics getting banned...


Over to you Doc!

Shiny happy skeptics plotting
Spot a Mormon in the crowd
People people
Throw your logic around
Ban me ban me
Cuz my logic is sound
Happy happy
I’m too damn profound
Where the Mormons grow
Dim brainwashed minds shine

------------

I agree in LDS culture the word "saint" has been diluted to mean something much less than it does in Catholicism. But, to many non-Mormons, it does indeed come across as pompous. I had two good friends tell me so after I left Mormonism. They mentioned it then because they felt it wouldn't offend me.

This is why I love these message boards. It often causes me to step outside of my own worldview and see the other side. I never really thought of it as a pompous and/or pretentious terminology (although I do consider the “Gentile” thing to be). Things that make you go “hmmmm…”

by the way, I didn't see any spelling errors, Steuss. Way to go!

KA

The apocalypse is nigh at hand.

[_Ren]

Shiny happy skeptics plotting
Spot a Mormon in the crowd
People people
Throw your logic around
Ban me ban me
Cuz my logic is sound
Happy happy
I’m too damn profound
Where the Mormons grow
Dim brainwashed minds shine

Haha! :)
Damn - that was quick! And good...!

[_harmony]

No more pretentious than a certain religious group calling themselves "Saints."

The term "saint" gets its positive connotation precisely because of its original definition in a religious context is seem as something desireable.

What original definition are you using currently?

If someone happens to meet that definition, it is no fault of their own that they enjoy the light of that connotation.

And what group of people meets this criteria? Or is it only individuals who can meet this definition of yours?

[_Blixa]

Thanks for the link, Schmo, I hadn't really read through their own material...

Iagree with ALITD, though, that the working definition of "naturalism" there implies atheism.

But either way, that name is sooooo pretentious. I find it outrageously off-putting.

[Guest]

I'm sticking with good old 'Atheist', and 'Libertarian'.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...