Hmmm… what word would better define atheists and semi-agnostics and general unbeleivers better ?
Bright certainly seems to arrogant… thou I agree that the beleiver/theists are “dim”. A-Theist is a “negative” construction too. Since god doesnt exist I dont want to be defined by a word meaning god.
Rationals or Scientism would be the way to go ? Realists or Skeptics maybe ? I like skeptic… its still open ended like agnostic without seeming so undecisive.
Sometimes negative (not prejoratively, but semantically) definitions are necessary. Non-theist sounds fine to me, I’m not sure what the problem with that would be.
Any term is going to be slurred by many believers, so no need to change it. Personally, I want something that makes a clear distinction from theist, so atheist works just fine for me or even infidel. It’s ironic to note that this cite the Op says Lib used, comes from the SBC. It’s no great secret that in 1845, one of the sole purposes of that pathetic organization was to defend slavery, and this group wants to edify atheists on what we call ourselves? 
JZ
And those are every bit as stupid as “Brights,” too.
If you had to choose replacement word, although not a perfect correlation with the classic philosophical definition of Logical Positivism, the term “Positivist” is close enough I think it accurately reflects most atheists personal ontological leanings and does is not cast aspersions on the intellectual merits of theism.
The problem is that historically, “positivism” covers more ground that classically defined “logical positivism” and in the opinion of some theists offers man as the object of worship, vs God, which is distinctly not in line with most atheist beliefs.
Still,“Positivist” is nice, non-judgmental, “up” word and atheists could do worse than to make it their own.
Logical Positivism has, unfortunately, the problem of being a mostly discarded philosophical fad. While elements of it were important, it, as a singular philosophy is not really held to be all that workable these days.
First, I believe Bruce teaches logical positivism and is also in charge of the sheepdip at Woolamaloo University. Had to be said.
From the horse’s mouth:
30 years. It seems like a lot longer, but how much of that is due to the work of vocal homosexuality advocates and activists?
Most people continue to miss the point (which, like I say, I don’t totally buy). The idea is to establish “bright” as a meme, as a noun, as a new meaning to the word. It is to move the word “bright” beyond being synonymous with “brilliance.” Look at the word “gay.” Nobody would seriously state that homosexuals are happier than the population at large. Nobody would state that heterosexuals are somehow grumpier than homosexuals.
The Bright people want to get to the point where the first thing you think about when you hear the word “bright” is not a quality of intelligence or light, it is a naturalist. We could have been having this discussion in the 1920s, and I could have argued against the word gay being used for homosexuals because they are not more happy than heterosexuals. Now, there is a new connotation to the word and to argue now that we shouldn’t call homosexuals gay because they are not more happy than the population at large would be ludicrous. It would be kind of like the antisemitism thing: antisemitism was coined as a phrase as a hatred towards Jews and used that way for 100 years. Just because antisemitism (as hatred towards the Jews) isn’t necessarily hatred against Semites doesn’t make the term invalid. Using the term anti-Semitism to mean hatred towards Semites may be more accurate, but invites confusion. Language evolution, like evolution in general, often takes us funny places.
That being said, I agree with DanielWithrow that it is stupid to dictate how language evolves, and that forced constructs rarely work. I agree that “bright” has a strong connotation now, and that spreading this around will do nothing to ameliorate the current opinion of most theists towards atheists.
Does this mean you won’t be coming to the Fesitivus Party?
You’re correct about this. But no other word would do better.
It’s though people, THOUGH!
Not thou. Thou hast been learned.
I like the “Rationals” and “Realists” terms but wouldn’t want to use “Scientism” as that would lead to confusion with yet another crackpot belief.
The only problem is that the true-believers out there are going to be just as pissed off by “Rationals” and “Realists.”
“What? Are you saying I’m irrational? I’m not realistic?”
Regards
Testy
[hijack]I normally don’t criticize people’s spelling, out of feer of Gaudere’s Law. But this one threw me for a loop. It’s actually kind of cool that Super Gnat understands the etymology of atheist and spells it correctly when referring to its etymology, but otherwise consistently misspells it as “athiest.”
I wish Daniel Pinker were around, so I could ask him what it means. :)[/hijack]
Daniel
Speaking as a non-atheist here, I find the term ‘bright’ pushes buttons in my mind that, whether I like it or not, causes me to perceive it as tacitly implying that non-members of the group are ‘dim’ - this might not have been the case if ‘bright’ was being chosen for a group of people wherein the chief distinction was not a intellectual/philosophical one, but because it is, it’s all too easy to viscerally perceive it as being an oblique insult. Furthermore, the implication that one is ‘not bright’ extends beyond the realm of religious belief, so even if a person holds the most laughably pathetic religious beliefs, they may in fact exhibit a high degree of intelligence and aptitude in other mundane areas.
I wouldn’t have the same qualms over ‘rationals’ or ‘realists’, because these terms are more usefully descriptive; atheists are often more ‘rational’ and ‘realistic’ than theists simply because they may only accept that which can be substantially supported by reproducible evidence - theists might disagree that this is the best way to go about things, but the terms ‘rationalism’ or ‘realism’ are valid and descriptive nonetheless.
I’m curious to know how the term ‘gay’ came about; did it just evolve spontaneously, or was it as a result of a forced intellectual decision, like this ‘bright’ thing?
I am an atheist, and I wholeheartedly endorse what Mangetout says in his first paragraph.
Much as I respect Dawkins and his theories, I really wish he hadn’t nailed his colours to the stupid mast.
Personally, I think it’s idiotic and distracting. The point is that religious discourse should be private and not public. As an atheist I’m more interested in seeing a reduction of religious content in the culture, and a “pride” movement would accomplish exactly the opposite of that.
It’s hypocritical anyway: to deny that those who’d be under the “bright” rubric are NOT defined by what they’re NOT is just ridiculous. Atheists exist ONLY in contrast to the religious; we simply fill the complementary space; we simply ARE what they are NOT. So giving us a “positive” label is anti-productive, by in essence calling too much attention to the religious.
Frankly, it feels a little like Dawkins et al. are playing Fox to the faithfuls’ Franken: you inflate the opposition by inflating your opposition to them; shut up and they’ll go away.
See, I was just, uh… proving my point, yeah! :o (Heh heh, feer.)
I pronounce it “a-thi-est” in real life. Also, “athiest” doesn’t look wrong to me, which is how I usually catch misspellings.
At any rate, it’s fairly obvious that in my mind it’s not “a-theist”, and I think I’m a good representative of the general population. Feel free to poll, though.
atheist
atheist
atheist
athiest… d’oh!
I always make a sacrifice to Gaudere on the rare occasion when I comment on someone’s misspellings; it’s always a good idea to pacify the Gauds.
Me, I think I might just start saying that I’m athy. As in, “Sure, I’m athy, but I’m far from the athiest person you’ll ever meet; plenty of people are athier than me.”
Daniel
If the point is to get respect, then don’t pick a word that makes you sound superior. Whenever I hear about this “bright” business I imagine Martin Prince crying “Why don’t you respect me? I am your superior!!!” while getting pummeled by Nelson.
I think we’re looking at it the wrong way. Heck, let’s pick something even MORE superior than “bright”. Take a cue from the religious types, like the Hasidim or the Latter-Day Saints.
I mean, can you imagine the audacity of going around calling yourself a saint? Yet we all put up with it.
So let’s get more audacious. Howzabout “Overlords?” Or “Intelligent and Handsome Devils?” That works in a sly jab at the long-held view that we’re agents of Satan, turning it around.
Ooh. I like “overlords.”
Daniel