# Thoughts on neologism "bright" to mean atheist **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 6, 2003, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901 "2003-09-06T07:17:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/81 "2003-09-11T06:29:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > **Can anyone provide an example of a name change ever helping anyone? Just one?** Well, there’s the way the term “atheism” has been watered down to encompass mere non-belief in God, as opposed to belief in no God. This is discussed in the following article, which traces the etymology and formally recognized usage of the terms: [http://home.infostations.com/quietsun/athart3.htm](http://home.infostations.com/quietsun/athart3.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/82 "2003-09-11T13:09:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > He seems to believe that if one is an atheist, one must _necessarily_ be a dogmatist. To deny the existence of anything is to adopt a dogma. As soon as one has determined that something is “true” or “false”, one has abandoned skepticism. Prove that “skeptic” automatically means “good”. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/83 "2003-09-11T13:12:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*Completely untrue. Which one of the senses of [dogma](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogma) would an atheist fit? \*\* [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm](http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/skept.htm) While atheists religiously deny being “dogmatic”, any belief held is a dogma. It doesn’t matter how many arguments are piled up upon it, if it is accepted as “fact” or “true”, then it is a dogma. Skepticism is not “It is false.” Skepticism is “I do not know.” ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/84 "2003-09-11T13:28:34Z")
**Dogface** , the skeptic would think more along the lines of : “I find no satisfactory evidence for that theory, so I will reject it until better evidence comes about” ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/85 "2003-09-11T16:51:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > To deny the existence of anything is to adopt a dogma. As soon as one has determined that something is “true” or “false”, one has abandoned skepticism. You obviously haven’t paid attention to the atheists here in SDMB; perhaps _a few_ have said they “deny” the existence of any gods (we would call them _strong_ atheists\*), but the overwhelming majority of us have always maintained that we simply do not believe in god(s) pending further evidence to the contrary. How that equals “dogma” in your mind is beyond me. > [@](#): > > Prove that “skeptic” automatically means “good”. Hmmm…First you argue that I’m _not_ a skeptic, then you argue that skepticism is not a good thing. You seem to be working at cross-purposes. > [@](#): > > any belief held is a dogma. Patently false. _Dogma_ is “a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds”. It is not “any belief”. \*Even among strong atheists, most deny the existence of _specific_ gods, e.g. the Christian God or the Muslim God, based on the contradictory characteristics of those gods as advanced by their respective religions. Rarely, if ever, do I recall any atheist claiming that _any_ god is _a priori_ impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/86 "2003-10-14T06:31:21Z")
> [@](#): > > From **JRDelirious** > Dogface, the skeptic would think more along the lines of : “I find no satisfactory evidence for that theory, so I will reject it until better evidence comes about” I disagree. This statement is the essence of dogmatism. Parsing the sentence a different way, one comes up with “I will reject it until better evidence comes about, because I find no satisfactory evidence for that theory.” The person is deciding to take one side based upon lack of evidence for the other, _not becuse of any sufficient evidence for his own viewpoint_ (assuming this is a two-choice situation.) A dogmatist says “I am right,” for whatever reason. A skeptic says “I don’t know.” ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/87 "2003-10-14T06:34:09Z")
> [@](#): > > From **JRDelirious** > Dogface, the skeptic would think more along the lines of : “I find no satisfactory evidence for that theory, so I will reject it until better evidence comes about” I disagree. This statement is the essence of dogmatism. Parsing the sentence a different way, one comes up with “I will reject it until better evidence comes about, because I find no satisfactory evidence for that theory.” The person is deciding to take one side based upon lack of evidence for the other, _not becuse of any sufficient evidence for his own viewpoint_ (assuming this is a two-choice situation.) A dogmatist says “I am right,” for whatever reason. A skeptic says “I don’t know.” > [@](#): > > From\*\* blowero\*\* > …the overwhelming majority of us have always maintained that we simply do not believe in god(s) pending further evidence to the contrary. How that equals “dogma” in your mind is beyond me. If a theist were to say that he will default to a belief in God until sufficient _evidence_ is shown to the contrary, I’d wager that many folks around here would call our theist friend a dogmatist. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/88 "2003-10-14T11:41:32Z")
For those whom “bright” bothers because it seems presumptuous and condescending, how is “rationalist” any better? I believe that I am rational. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/89 "2003-10-14T17:21:10Z")
> [@](#): > > ## \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* quote: > > ## From blowero …the overwhelming majority of us have always maintained that we simply do not believe in god(s) pending further evidence to the contrary. How that equals “dogma” in your mind is beyond me. > > If a theist were to say that he will default to a belief in God until sufficient _evidence_ is shown to the contrary, I’d wager that many folks around here would call our theist friend a dogmatist. What does that have to do with what I said? More importantly, what made you feel compelled to resurrect this thread after a month of inactivity? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/90 "2003-10-14T17:53:25Z")
To build on what someone said before, the word “gay” is a specious comparison to this. “Gay” with the meaning “licentious” was originally applied to prostitutes, then to male prostitutes who were known as “gay boys;” from there the meaning expanded to any homosexual man, and then to women as well, first as a slang term, then adopted as a self-describer in regular discourse. It’s not clear whether it was originally applied to gay men by gay men themselves or by others. It wasn’t a conscious choice, such as this, nor a euphemism exactly (as noted, it stemmed from the meaning of licentious, not merry.) ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/91 "2003-10-14T18:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > What does that have to do with what I said? More importantly, what made you feel compelled to resurrect this thread after a month of inactivity? First, I was pointing out that defaulting to a belief because of lack of evidence to the contrary is dogmatist. Second, it was linked to in an active OP, and I wasn’t paying attention to the timestamps. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/92 "2003-10-14T19:36:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*First, I was pointing out that defaulting to a belief because of lack of evidence to the contrary is dogmatist. > \*\* But I said we “do not believe in god(s) pending further evidence to the contrary”. I didn’t say we _believe_ in _not_-God. You’re saying that the lack of a belief is a belief. Who are you, George Orwell? Whether you admit it or not, your default is to not believe a thing until you have reason to believe that thing. As another poster (I forgot who) asked awhile back, do you check the brake lines on your car every day to make sure gremlins didn’t cut them? Why not? Do you dogmatically believe in _not_-gremlins? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/93 "2003-10-14T20:08:38Z")
Blow Can a demand for evidence become itself dogmatic? (Not that it is in your particular case, just _can_ it?) Especially if the demand is for, say, subjective evidence such as an experience? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/94 "2003-10-14T20:56:12Z")
Lib, I’m not demanding _anything_. You ask if a demand for evidence can be dogmatic. The question seems irrelevant since we aren’t talking about demands for evidence. Having said that, I don’t begrudge anyone their own subjective experience. Were I to have an objective experience(s) that were sufficiently powerful and convincing, I might very well develop a belief based on it. On the other hand, were I schizophrenic, I might believe that the government was beaming thought-waves into my brain. I say that not to denegrate or make any kind of comparison, but merely to point out that _another’s_ subjective experience is quite a different thing from _my_ experience, and I certainly don’t _demand_ anything of the kind. The fact is that I have not had such an experience, and have yet to hear any other person’s experience described to me that is sufficient to convince _me_. If there actually _were_ a lot of convincing evidence for God, and I _still_ rejected that evidence out of hand, then that _would_ be dogmatic; but that is not the case. These subjective experiences may very well be emotionally powerful to those who have experienced them, and I _do_ believe that emotions exist. I just don’t happen to think any of them that have been described to me thus far are sufficient to prove that supernatural entities physically exist. To put it blithely (and admittedly oversimplifying), your happy feelings are not valid towards demonstrating the physical existence of God to me. You can call that dogmatism if you like, but then our definitions of dogmatism would be wildly different. That’s not to say atheists can’t be dogmatists; they certainly can. I just don’t think anyone is justified in saying that we ALL are, or even that the majority of us are. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/95 "2003-10-14T23:30:29Z")
> [@](#): > > From **blowero** > Whether you admit it or not, your default is to not believe a thing until you have reason to believe that thing. That may be, but that doesn’t mean that the default is not dogmatic. And yes. I’m not ashamed to say that I dogmatically believe in not-gremlins. No, I have not found sufficient evidence for not-gremlins. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/96 "2003-10-15T07:23:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*That may be, but that doesn’t mean that the default is not dogmatic. > > And yes. I’m not ashamed to say that I dogmatically believe in not-gremlins. No, I have not found sufficient evidence for not-gremlins. \*\* Your definition of dogmatic differs from mine. ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/97 "2003-10-15T11:44:16Z")
I _still_ don’t understand the need for another word for atheïst. Since when did atheïsts get a bad press? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/98 "2003-10-15T17:44:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gum \* > \*\*I _still_ don’t understand the need for another word for atheïst. > > Since when did atheïsts get a bad press? \*\* All the time. Things are different here in the U.S. One of the most egregious examples: [Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush) (scroll down to where it says: “George Bush on atheism and patriotism”) > [@](#): > > “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” :rolleyes: Imagine the firestorm in the press if he had said such a thing about blacks, hispanics, women, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Tamex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Tamex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamex)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/99 "2003-10-16T17:36:42Z")
I just got an e-mail on Michael Shermer’s e-Skeptic mailing list regarding this topic. Here’s a link to his article, [“The Big ‘Bright’ Brouhaha”](http://www.skeptic.com/brightBrouhaha.html). It would have been nice if these sorts of studies had been done before, for example, Rush Limbaugh got a chance to lambast the “Brights” on his show. ---
**Author:** ![Rodrigo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Rodrigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodrigo)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901/100 "2003-10-16T20:13:23Z")
Just a couple things: 1. Why don’t atheist, agnostics et al decide IF they want a generalterm for allof them and then THEY decide how to be called. 2. Bright is bad and would make you folks catch too much flack. 3. Be carefulwith the name, because other changes have gone bad, e.g.: Are Semitic Egyptian-Americans also African Americans? (Egypt is is Africa) are Israeli-Americans or Pakistani-Americans also Asian-Americans?(Israel and Pakistan are in Asia, are American Indians, First Nations, Original Dwellers, Indians,First Peoples, Pre-Columbian Inhabitants…I’m always one name late) 4. Atheist (like hispanic or Jew) is not demeaning termon themselves, but they can be used like that.The n-word has, OTOH, no “good” use 5. I move that we Catholics change our name too. Some options a) Rome-based Christian b) Vaticaner c) Pope-People d)Non-Protestant-Non-Orthodox-Christian 1. What’s next on the name-changing thing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-neologism-bright-to-mean-atheist/199901.md?page=4)