What’s the other site? Could be me too…
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.
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.
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.
I’m not calling myself a bright because it would make me sound like a big dork.
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.
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.
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.
For what it’s worth, I call myself a “rationalist.”
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.
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.
Another athiest checking in.
Ditto.
It is condesending, argumentative and just dumb sounding.
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.
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
[ul]
[li]it lumps together a number of views of the world as if they were all the same. [/li][li]it is an attempt to hide what some people might perceive as a mental or moral blemish behind a verbal screen[/li][li]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[/li][li]it assumes that the end justifies the means[/li][li]it perpetuates the myth that “new is necessarily better”[/li][li]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.”[/li][li]implicit in it (more of its arrogance) is the idea that anyone who does not label themselves “a bright” is of low intelligence[/li][/ul]
No thanks, I’ll not be using it. These old agnostic shoes still have plenty of sole left.
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
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.”
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 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. 
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!”
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”.
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.
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.