Thoughts on neologism "bright" to mean atheist

[knock knock]

There’s a neologism afoot. Some folks want the noun bright to be used to mean atheist, or “a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view.” Examples of proper use of the new term include “Daniel Dennett is a bright,” “You can register as a bright at this website,” and “I think brights should have the same rights as everyone else.” It would not be correct to say something like “there are more bright people than you might realize,” since bright already has another meaning as an adjective. The movement to replace “atheist” with the nicer term “bright” is modeled after the success of the term “gay” for “homosexual.” It is hoped that it will become more socially acceptable to be a bright, and that closet brights will be able to ‘come out’ without recrimination.

The bright movement brings to mind several questions:

1. Are brights a disadvantaged minority group?
2. Are there lots of closet brights out there?
3. Given the current social atmosphere, do brights have a good reason for staying in the closet?
4. Is a social atmosphere that is more accepting of brights desirable?
5. Could introducing a new word like bright help brights become more socially accepted?
6. Will this movement to give the term bright a new meaning be successful? That is, will this use of the term bright become widespread?

Some of these questions are more GD material, so I’ll stick to the last two. My view is that a term like this could help the bright cause – “atheist” sounds so negative and brights are not unified behind any other term. Also, terms like “secular humanist” are too academic-sounding.

However, I don’t think that the term bright will become widespread. A main problem is that the word bright already has too many meanings & uses. Gay had a fairly limited use as “happy” and was rather expendable in that role, and now “gay” is almost absent from our language outside of its new use. Bright, however, has many meanings which are not likely to go away. It’s bright out. He’s a bright kid. Turn on your brights when you’re driving at night in the country. It’s also a more vivid term than “gay,” – it’s related to light and vision, and has its positive meanings & connotations largely because of a common metaphor associating light with good or truth. People wouldn’t want atheism to co-opt that metaphorical position. Additionally, despite claims to the contrary by its supporters, saying “I’m a bright” sounds an awful lot like saying “I’m bright,” which makes it come across as arrogant.

What do you think?

[friedo]

Yet another attempt to eliminate a social problem by changing its label.

Stupid.

[Marley23]

This may have nothing to do with the OP, I'm not sure.

From a quick reading: I agree with Dawkins about the strength of words. I do sometimes cross off the 'under god' on dollar bills and - after I learned I was allowed to - I quit standing for the pledge in school. Those things DO matter in their own way. That said, no way am I calling myself a 'bright.'

Why? First off, I'm already bright: I'm a smart guy. Redundant. And I know plenty of bright people who do believe in god, and I'm not going to dismiss them as stupid just for that.
*Most importantly, though, silly old writer me thinks that words should mean what they're supposed to mean. (To be un-silly about it, I mean I hate euphemisms.) If I told a hypothetical person that I am a bright, they have no information about me. I'm not a fan of substituting prettier-but-meaningless words for accurate ones. I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of any gods; look in the dictionary and you find that's exactly what the term means. If I tell you I'm an atheist, and if you talk to me for long enough I most certainly will, you know something about me.

Homosexual is no longer a preferred term for gays, not because it's inaccurate, but because the term was used so much as a slur by bigots that it picked up a negative connotation. (And it's true that it's not a fun word.) Interestingly, my girlfriend, who grew up in the South, feels that "atheism" has the same connotation. I remember she once told me that I'm more of a humanist than an atheist. The terms are not mutually exclusive as far as I know. Humanist probably is a fair description of me, but it doesn't tell you that I'm also an atheist. And anyway, it's the label I'm used to and I'm not changing to be trendy.

from Dawkins' article
"You mean a bright is an atheist?"

"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some freethinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."

He's correct here in that there's no broad term for this other than something academic like secular humanist. Bright sounds silly, though, and again, it just doesn't tell you anything.

On to knock knock's questions-

1. Are brights a disadvantaged minority group?

Yes. There's the issue of social pressure involved, which is true for nearly any minority group. Disadvantaged is such a vague term I'm having trouble responding to it. Atheists aren't denied any legal or social rights; the problem is generally one of custom and prejudice. In a country where the separation of church and state is supposed to be super-important, I do indeed resent kids being pressured or forced to say a pledge to god, handle money, etc. with religious terminology on it. Aside from violating the law, I think it sends the message that 'your views are inferior.' On the other hand, atheists don't have the huge disadvantages faced by some ethnic or economic groups.

2. Are there lots of closet brights out there?

I can't define "a lot," but there are certainly some.

3. Given the current social atmosphere, do brights have a good reason for staying in the closet?

Some of them do, sure. It pisses me off to no end, but some families - and some cultures in the U.S. - would absolutely not accept an atheist member. My folks are tolerant, but I had to do my share to assert myself.

4. Is a social atmosphere that is more accepting of brights desirable?

Absolutely. Tolerance is desirable, period.

5. Could introducing a new word like bright help brights become more socially accepted?

I doubt it, but perhaps you'd need somebody who knows more about marketing than me. Are people more comfortable talking to gays and watching them on TV than homosexuals? I'd say probably not. Even if it would help, I'd hesitate because acceptance shouldn't be gained through a three-card-monty style change of image, it should be gained based on forthrightness. If other atheists aren't accepted by those around them, I don't think the atheists are the ones who have to change: they aren't the problem.

6. Will this movement to give the term bright a new meaning be successful? That is, will this use of the term bright become widespread?

You gave some reasons you think it won't catch on, and I agree. Atheist - indeed, radical atheist - was good enough for Douglas Adams, and it's good enough for me.

[Gorsnak]

What Marley23 said. I'd also add that there's really bugger all that "brights" have in common in terms of belief. I mean, if someone accepts the label 'Christian', we can conclude that the person holds a certain set of beliefs. Now of course there's a fair bit of variation, but there's also a reasonably large set of core beliefs that all Christians hold. The same is true for most religions. Atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, don't share any substantial set of beliefs outside of the single belief that god does not (or cannot be known to) exist. The grounds for this belief and the significance it holds vary widely from atheist to atheist. Atheists don't make up a group in the same way Christians, Muslems, Taoists, or Hindus do, and I think that due to this the use of a term like "bright" would actually be potentially misleading.

[Revtim]

It's stupid. Although I happen to be an atheist, I realize that simply being correct on this particular isue doesn't make one a bright person. And no matter what they say, that is the meaning of "bright" that people will think they mean.

And if the goal is really to gain acceptance, a truly bright idea wouldn't be to use a term that implies superiority.

[Ringo]

Heh, why not "differently abled?"

[whiterabbit]

"Bright" sounds pretty arrogant to me. The obvious implication is that "I'm brighter than you because you believe in God and I don't, nyah nyah!" This is not going to help acceptance -- and it sounds just plain silly anyway. Some VERY bright people have deep beliefs in God. Our own Polycarp, for example.

[Fretful Porpentine]

Sounds rather silly to me. I'd much rather work on changing our culture so people don't perceive "atheist" as a negative term.

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

I don't like the term "bright." Like others have noted, it sounds arrogant--even if it's not meant that way.

However, it is true that "atheist" does carry negative baggage. I think the "brights" were on to something when they decided to coin a new term, I just think they made a poor choice.

[Marley23]

I'd also add that there's really bugger all that "brights" have in common in terms of belief.

Gorsnak is correct here, and I don't think this can be overstated. I've seen plenty of people make the 'atheism is a religion' argument and completly overlook this point. There are all manner of atheists with all sorts of views. Some are into the whole 'supernatural' thing, so they apparently wouldn't be brights anyway.

[MEBuckner]

I think it's pretty silly myself, and I don't use and doubt I will start. I would use a number of terms to describe myself, depending on which aspect of my beliefs I was emphasizing at the moment; probably the ones I'd use most would be "atheist", "secular humanist", and "freethinker". "Bright" (which is actually my mother's maiden name) just doesn't have any content to it; "atheist" means one without a belief in God or gods; "secular humanist" signifies belief in a particular set of ideals centered on advancing the welfare of human beings here-and-now; "freethinker" is about a commitment to seeking the truth independent of arbitrary authority or unexamined dogmas. "Bright" is just some sort of advertising slogan. "The 21st Century non-theists! Now 42% Brighter!"

As to "atheist" having negative connotations, running from the word won't rescue it (a perfectly descriptive and neutral term) from any negative connotations theists attribute to it; and whatever else is chosen will just come to be demonized in turn. It's not the label some people don't like; it's the content.

[Jodi]

I think it's silly. "Bright" as applied to people means, in the English language, "smart" or "clever." To say "I'm not saying I'm bright, I'm saying I'm a bright, which is totally different!" sounds not just arrogant but disingenuous to me.

Maybe there will be a language shift and this alternate meaning will become accepted, as "gay" did, but I seriously doubt it. Certainly I'm not going to help it along as I feel no obligation to use terms or labels I think are stupid, artificial, and disingenuous.

[Musicat]

A previous discussion of the term "bright" is in this thread.

[Ringo]

I agree with all those who think it silly. My earlier comment was meant to say that I thought it typical of the often non-sensical rebranding of things that's been with us in force since the early days of PC.

But then I realized it could be taken as a jab at atheists. It's not. I'm atheist and certainly didn't mean to poke the atheists.

If the usage ever does enter the vernacular, I think it will have to mean "pretentious atheist."

And the arrogance of the proponents of this usage really pisses me off. These folks, including Randi, don't speak for me.

[Revtim]

If we really want to take the stigma from "atheist", perhaps we should do like blacks did with the n-word.

Frequently call other non-believers "my atheist". When one says something stupid, go "Athiest please!".

[Marley23]

Revtim: You know, amazingly, I never thought of that. I'll try it.

Funny also that I only post on two websites, and both of them have a Rev. Tim.

[shy guy]

At first I coudln't believe this was serious. Then I figured it was so stupid it had to be.

I really don't see why the term atheist has to be replaced at all, let alone by one that tries to elevate us above theists. I have no problem telling people I'm an atheist, I don't need to sugarcoat it with a happier sounding term because I'm afraid it might paint me in a negative light.

What's more, "brights"? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. So being a homosexual atheist would make me a bright gay person? Well goll-ee, sarge, why don't we call all left handed people "fanciful unicorns" while we're at it. It's worth noting that I also hate the word "gay", so make of that what you will.

Certainly I'm not going to help it along as I feel no obligation to use terms or labels I think are stupid, artificial, and disingenuous.

A thousand times "word".

[Already in Use]

I'm not technically an atheist, but I am against static dogma and reverence, and in favor of a scientific worldview and the separation of church and state, so I sympathize a lot with atheists. "Bright," in my opinion, is a stupid term, partially because it obscures the meaning of what an atheist is and believes, partially because "atheist" carries no stigma with intelligent people, and is on its way (albeit slowly) toward losing its stigma with the general populace, and partially because it sounds all touchy-feely and New Agey (ugh).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Marley23
He's correct here in that there's no broad term for this other than something academic like secular humanist.

Hm.

The broad sense of "atheist," which should denote somebody who is without a belief in god (or gods), as per Michael Martin et al, seems to work fine.

[astorian]

Look, as a Catholic, I'm not entitled to a vote here. Atheists can call themselves anything they want. I just wonder what the benefit of adopting the name "bright" (or any other moniker, for that matter) is supposed to be.

The atheists I know are hardly in need of a boost in self-esteem! Most ALREADY regard themselves as infinitely smarter than believers.

Believers, on the other hand, are NOT going to take a more positive view of atheists simply because they've adopted a happier-sounding name. What do Dawkins and Randi expect is going to happen?


*****

New neighbor: I'm an atheist.

Believers: Persecute him! Stone him! Burn him at the stake!

New neighbor: Oops! Did I say I'm an atheist? I meant to say, I'm a bright!

Believers: Ohhhh, well, that's different. Let's have a big welcoming party for you!

*****

Again, atheists have a right to call themselves anything they like. They're just deluding themselves if they think a new phrase will make their position more appealing to people who don't share it. George W. Bush can call himself a "compassionate conservative" or Michael Dukakis can call himself "a pragmatist" and "technocrat," but does that make either man the least bit more attractive to people who don't share his beliefs?

Heck, let's reverse the roles a second. Some nonbelievers in this thread have expressed that they feel like unwanted outsiders, like shunned freaks in some settings. Well, that's a shame, but I have news for you folks: a devout Catholic who goes to an Ivy LEague college (as I did) often feels like a freak and an outsider, too! I have no doubt that, in the circles where Dawkins runs, Christians are a tiny minority (as they are in academia in general). Those few Christians probably feel mighty uncomfortable.

So... what if those Christians adopted a new name? That's the ticket! "Christian" has negative connotations to some sophisticated folk, so we'll just adopt a fresh new name, and THEN Dawkins and his fellow-atheists will respect us more, and we can express our beliefs without embarrassment!

Sounds rather silly, even pathetic, eh?

Whether you're a Christian or an atheist, you're going to feel like an embattled minority in some circles.

Boo fucking hoo. There's nothing in the Bible or the Constitution that says you have a right never to feel uncomfortable.

It's your beliefs or non-beliefs that make you anathema to some, NOT what you call yourself.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Marley23
Revtim: You know, amazingly, I never thought of that. I'll try it.

Funny also that I only post on two websites, and both of them have a Rev. Tim.

What's the other site? Could be me too....

[jjimm]

Atheist saying that it's dumb, IMO.

It's divisive. There are all kinds of atheist; to group all of them together, whether Dawkins acknowledges the diversity or not, is do diminish the nuances in belief and lack thereof.

The word has a judgement value: "bright" is usually a positive adjective. The opposite is "dull". I cannot believe the coiners of the word didn't consider this at the time.

It sounds mystical - like "indigo children" or some other such nonsense. The exact opposite of what atheists are all about.

[Cervaise]

Another atheist who will not use the term because it seems needlessly combative and condescending.

I agree that atheists are somewhat oppressed (e.g., former President Bush saying "atheists are not citizens"; could he have said that about any other group of Americans?), and that this needs to change, but I disagree that "bright" is the means by which it will be accomplished.

[John Carter of Mars]

As an agnostic, it's against my inclinations to get down off the fence but...They(whoever they are) can't priate the word bright away from its current use. I won't let 'em. So there!

While we're at it, let's get gay back to its original meaning too. When those early 20th century social columnists wrote: "The party was a gay event, with music and dancing long into the night" their prose had such a nice ring to it.

Done may well be done in the case of gay, but lets all hold the line on this (not so) bright idea.

[butter pie]

I'm not calling myself a bright because it would make me sound like a big dork.

[emmaliminal]

When I read the Daniel Dennett piece when it was new, it seemed as though Dennett was posing the neologism as a rhetorical strategy -- that he didn't reaaaaally expect the term to replace "atheist" in common usage.

Having been an agnostic in a family of agnostics and atheists all my life, and having lived exclusively in university towns, I never would have believed that anyone anywhere seriously thinks non-religious people feel intimidated ino not revealing their beliefs -- until I read the article. That is its real importance, IMHO, not the dorky neologism.

from the Daniel C. Dennett editorial from the Op-ed Page in The New York Times, 7/12/03
I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright... Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

Dang! I had no idea.

By the way, the proposal is for "bright" not as a replacement for "atheist", but as a catch-all term for "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view," to include atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc. Not that this makes it any more desirable to me, but at least it's not being proposed as a straight swap for a perfectly decent pre-existing term.

[Ringo]

The proposal remains yet another neo-obfuscation that contributes to making language increasingly meaningless. Clear speech remains infinitely preferable.

And I'll add that I'm fairly well ensconced in the corporado life, and before this situation I promoted my own company for many years. I have never felt that I needed to disguise my theological orientation, even with those clients or colleagues who wear their religion on their sleeves.

I'm not in the habit of picking fights about it, especially not in a business setting. But a revelation of my atheism has never had negative consequences.

When first I considered a reply here, I thought perhaps those claiming intimidation or some other minority disadvantage were just the extremely weak-willed. The post above by emilyforce made me rethink and conclude that possibly many of the intimidated are those younger and relatively ineperienced.

Don't be shy about it, but don't proseltyze either. Given all the cosmologies afoot on the planet, none of which can be proven, the only sure bet is that almost all of us are wrong.

[Cervaise]

For what it's worth, I call myself a "rationalist."

[bluecanary]

Like Cervaise I think the term 'bright' is needlessly condescending, and will lead to 'rationalists' (I like this term much more) being portrayed as arrogant.

I think Randi et al have misjudged this one, to be honest.

[Interrobang!?]

I'm happy to call myself an atheist when I can follow up and explain that what I mean by the word is not necessarily what the person I'm talking to means by the word.* "Atheist," like "feminist" or a lot of other "big category" words, means so many things to so many people that, even if you're using it correctly, it doesn't necessarily clarify your position on anything.

I would probably be an ideal candidate for calling myself a bright. And there's no way on earth I'm going to do it, because I think it reeks of condescention that I don't feel.

In other words, what pretty much every candidate for brighthood has already said in this thread.

*I'm atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any gods; I'm agnostic in that I don't feel like the question is provable, and frankly I'm in the "it's not that interesting a question" category.

[Debaser]

Another athiest checking in.

Ditto.

It is condesending, argumentative and just dumb sounding.

[absimia]

Same here. I remember reading about "Bright" on the Randi site and thinking to myself, "Jeez Randi, you already have the whole 'I come off as a big ole asshole' thing going on and this isn't going to help matters at all." It is also needlessly obfuscatory.

[Fatwater Fewl]

You know, this "bright" thing smacks to me of a few distasteful things (including Jaron Lanier's points). And the arrogance, condescension, argumentativeness, etc., which have already been pointed out.

But number one on the list for me is deceit. It is deceitful in that

• it lumps together a number of views of the world as if they were all the same.
• it is an attempt to hide what some people might perceive as a mental or moral blemish behind a verbal screen
• it is nothing more or less than a marketing strategy, a public relations spin, an attempt to make something appear more palatable by changing its packaging or delivery
• it assumes that the end justifies the means
• it perpetuates the myth that "new is necessarily better"
• it is the worst form of dishonesty -- self-deceit (whence comes the arrogance to assume, for instance, both that the end justifies the means and that use of it will deceive anyone other than oneself) -- as the act of using it assumes that words have power but not over the person using them -- IOW, "Sure, this will change others' perception of me, but it won't change my perception of me."
• implicit in it (more of its arrogance) is the idea that anyone who does not label themselves "a bright" is of low intelligence

No thanks, I'll not be using it. These old agnostic shoes still have plenty of sole left.

[godzillatemple]

If somebody does not believe in God (i.e., he's an atheist) but does believe in, say, astrology, palmistry, UFOs (specifically, that they are alien vessles and not simply unidentified objects), acupuncture, and/or crystal healing, can he still be considered "bright"? Partially bright, perhaps? Bright, but not putting out a lot of candlepower? How about a few lumens short of bright?

Just wondering...

Barry

[emmaliminal]

Originally posted by godzillatemple
If somebody does not believe in God (i.e., he's an atheist) but does believe in, say, astrology, palmistry, UFOs (specifically, that they are alien vessles and not simply unidentified objects), acupuncture, and/or crystal healing, can he still be considered "bright"?

I think the authors referenced in the OP would say "No."

Dawkins: "... all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."

Dennett: "A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny -- or God."

[Podkayne]

I'm another atheist who's not going to use it. My main objection is that, as many others have said, it is condescending. There's also something else about it the gives me a squirrelly feeling of discomfort.

jjim very nearly puts his finger on it when he says:

It sounds mystical - like "indigo children" or some other such nonsense. The exact opposite of what atheists are all about.

It has sort of a weird, secret-handshake, hidden-among-normals kind of a vibe to it. But such irrtational notions are unbecoming of a bright, really.

[Spiff]

And don't the wiccans already use 'bright' anyway?

:: Spiff seezes ::

Fundie: "God bless you!"

SDMBer: "OG bless you!"

Fence-sitter: "Bless you!"

Teuton: "Gesundheit!"

Your Mom: "Use a Kleenex fercryinoutloud!"

Wiccan: "Bright blessings!"

[blowero]

Well I think it's a great idea. Perhaps "bright" isn't the word I would have come up with, but I like the idea. The word atheist has been ruined by bigotry and misuse. Despite a lot of people's pooh-pooing of such language changes, I think it's been eminently successful in changing general opinion about gay people, for example. Just look at astorian's post, and all the hatred and negative baggage he attaches to the word "atheist". Sadly, the word atheist has been "used up", just like "homosexual" and "Negro".

[Tamex]

This idea was presented on the Skeptic magazine mailing list. In my e-mailed reply, I said that the connotation of "bright" is so condescending" that we may as well go ahead and promote the term "asshole" instead for all the good it's going to do.

I prefer "skeptic" or "free-thinker" as a general term. Or, why not take back some perjorative term, like homosexuals did with "gay" and "queer"? How about "heretic" or "infidel"? I like "infidel". There's already a group using it, too--the Internet Infidels message board. And, well, it's true. I am an infidel. So what?

Yeah, you guys have touched on it--"bright" is all touchy-feely and fluffy and New Agey. If I were New Agey, I'd be going on about spirits and psychics and astrology, which is supposedly "un-bright". It's just the wrong word, IMO.

[Dogface]

Why don't they all just say "I'm a Betterthanyou." This sort of stupidity is exactly the opposite of being "bright".

Duh-hyuk, duh-hyuk, duh-hyuk! Lets all go 'roun' sayin how smart weee izz, and dat'll make evrybahdddy luvs us reeeel good now!

I prefer the adoption of "infidel" (yes, it has already been done before Tamex suggested it). It's a far more fiery term. It's in your face without being stuck-up or smarmy like "bright" is.

Of course, considering the orginal source, one generally expects stuck-up and smarmy therefrom.

[Marley23]

I'm all for reclaiming stuff - infidel, heretic... I call myself that all the time.
Blasphemer has a nice ring to it, too. Just imagine the atheist bumper stickers: "Blasphemy is a blast for me!"

[whiterabbit]

My brother, who is something of an apathetic agnostic (he don't know and he don't care) agrees that this is an incredibly stupid idea.

[astorian]

Originally posted by blowero
Well I think it's a great idea. Perhaps "bright" isn't the word I would have come up with, but I like the idea. The word atheist has been ruined by bigotry and misuse. Despite a lot of people's pooh-pooing of such language changes, I think it's been eminently successful in changing general opinion about gay people, for example. Just look at astorian's post, and all the hatred and negative baggage he attaches to the word "atheist". Sadly, the word atheist has been "used up", just like "homosexual" and "Negro".

Hatred? Get a grip! Apparently, one needn't believe in God to have a martyr complex!

But I'll humor you for a second. SUPPOSE I am driven by hatred and rage. Suppose I DO hate atheists, and want them all tortured to death. Do you really think I'd be assuaged by a name change?

Do Klansmen hate "African-Americans" any less than they hated "Negroes"? Does Jack Chick hate "gays" any less than he hated "homosexuals"?

Atheists don't hold my Christian beliefs in disdain because of the name "Christian"- they'd find my beliefs just as ridiculous if I called them something else. In the same way, people who find atheism distatsteful aren't going to find it more appealing if you call it something else.

[Marley23]

Yeah, now wait a minute. I re-read astorian's post. There's no hatred there. Plenty of attitude , but nothing to make me think he actually hates atheists. He's right that in certain circumstances, religious people can be outsiders too. I'm not sure what the bible/constitution bit had to do with it, but it's true.

Although he does say "Most ALREADY regard themselves as infinitely smarter than believers." To that, I'll pipe up just enough to say I know my share of smug, intolerable believers as well. Some people who hold Opinion X will ALWAYS be that obnoxious and condescending about people who don't hold Opinion X. Nobody has a monopoly on that.

[manx]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
My brother, who is something of an apathetic agnostic (he don't know and he don't care)

Now that is a description that I can used. I've always thought I lacked the 'fire', so to speak, to be a real atheist.

And does 'bright' make anyone think of some sort of mischeveious fairie? Perhaps the next creature to be introduced in a 'Care of Magical Creatures' lesson in the sixth Harry Potter book.

Possibly just me then...

[blowero]

Originally posted by astorian
Hatred? Get a grip! Apparently, one needn't believe in God to have a martyr complex!

Hmmm...you sure as hell didn't sound like you love atheists:

The atheists I know are hardly in need of a boost in self-esteem! Most ALREADY regard themselves as infinitely smarter than believers.

"Most", eh? That's a pretty broad statement for someone who has nothing against atheists.

Boo fucking hoo. There's nothing in the Bible or the Constitution that says you have a right never to feel uncomfortable.

Oh, yeah - and that's just oozing with love.

But I'll humor you for a second. SUPPOSE I am driven by hatred and rage. Suppose I DO hate atheists, and want them all tortured to death. Do you really think I'd be assuaged by a name change?

Cute - I say "hatred and negative baggage", and it gets turned into "hatred, rage, and wanting them all tortured to death". Yeah, that's what I said.

Do Klansmen hate "African-Americans" any less than they hated "Negroes"? Does Jack Chick hate "gays" any less than he hated "homosexuals"?

I daresay the numbers of people who hate blacks and gays are diminishing. They're not all gone, but there has been improvement.

Atheists don't hold my Christian beliefs in disdain because of the name "Christian"- they'd find my beliefs just as ridiculous if I called them something else.

Who said your beliefs were ridiculous? That's an awfully big chip you've got on your shoulder. Now, who was it that needed to get a grip again?

[Ironikinit]

Calling homosexuals gay doesn't mean you think heterosexuals are unhappy. Calling an American Indian a Native American doesn't mean that you think other people who live in North or South America weren't born there. Calling a materialist a bright doesn't necessarily mean you think believers are stupid.

The same criticism levelled at the term bright can be used against other general terms for people with a naturalistic worldview. Those who prefer the term rationalist could be accused of implying that believers are irrational.

I like bright. I used to call myself a materialist, because that was the philosophical term and atheist is defined by an absence. Unfortunately, materialist can also be defined as a great regard for possessions. Bright is short, just one syllable. As an umbrella term it is more inclusive than the old terms atheist and agnostic, which you just know some believer came up with. And it's honest.

Yes, honest. There is a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ, and it's no secret. Cite.

I don't know whether or not it will catch on, but the criticisms of it I've seen so far are unimpressive.

[astorian]

Look, blow, all the arguments for "bright" boil down to two very dubious propositions:

1) "We non-believers will get a big boost in self-esteem by adopting a happy, positive name."

2) "Believers will love and embrace us if we adopt a more upbeat moniker."

Well, before anything else, I must state that I've been a fan of the Amazing Randi since I was 5 years old (I always looked forward to his appearnces on "Wonderama"), I bought "Flim Flam" 20+ years ago, and I think he performs a very valuable service in exposing charlatans and scam artists. But folks, there has NEVER been a man less in need of additional self-esteem than James Randi! James Randi likes James Randi a LOT! If he liked himself any more, he'd be utterly unbearable! And Richard Dawkins doesn't lack a healthy ego, either.

I find it odd that the guys pushing "bright" as a self-esteem booster are already about as self-satisfied as human beings can get.

As for proposition #2, well, that bespeaks a real disdain for the intelligence of believers. As if all you have to do is repackage an objectionable notion and they won't recognize it for what it is!

**

Do I carry a chip on my shoulder? Nah, not really. I simply point out that I know as well as any atheist does how uncomfortable it can be to move in circles where your most cherished believes are either mocked or disrespected. Is a liberal atheist going to feel like an outsider in a small town in the Deep South? Sure- just as Catholic Republican astorian did at Columbia, and just as he still does (occasionally) in a town like Austin. Again, boo hoo! Since when was I ENTITLED to feel comfortable and coddled? It's not always fun to feel like an embattled minority, but then nobody forced me to be a Republican and nobody forced Randi to be an atheist. We made what we thought were principled, rational choices, and we live with them- even if that makes us unpopular in some circles.

Suppose we few Republicans at Columbia had decided "You know, Republicans have a bad image. Liberals just don't respect us. I know- it must be the name! Yeah, Republican makes them think of Nixon and McCarthy... we need a more positive name! Let's call ourselves.... the America Lovers! That sounds so much better and more positive!"

Would that have bolstered our self-esteem? Not at all! We already liked ourselves fine.

Would it have made liberals respect us more? OF COURSE NOT! Most would have scoffed, "Call yourselves what you want, you're STILL The same old Pubbies." And others would have snarled, "What's THAT supposed to mean? That we liberals HATE America or something?"

"Atheist" is a neutral, descriptive word, just like "Republican" and "Christian." If any one of those words describes us, we should embrace it- not look for a euphemism.

[Shade]

Personally I'm happy with 'athiest', though I'm never sure where the line between it and ''agnostic' is.

OTOH, I could be persuaded of the utitlity of a word that meant 'skeptic and atheist,' since atheists seem often, but not always, to be skeptic.

Also, I don't hear 'atheist' used perjoritively here. Is it really going the way of 'nigger'?

[Dogface]

I would like to see some solid and well-researched evidence that all improvements in the status of minorities are a DIRECT RESULT of euphemising them.

"I'm a bright." == "I'm a self-satisfied and smarmy jackass."