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!” 
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.
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.
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.
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…
Hmmm…you sure as hell didn’t sound like you love atheists:
“Most”, eh? That’s a pretty broad statement for someone who has nothing against atheists.
Oh, yeah - and that’s just oozing with love.
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.:rolleyes:
I daresay the numbers of people who hate blacks and gays are diminishing. They’re not all gone, but there has been improvement.
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?
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.
Look, blow, all the arguments for “bright” boil down to two very dubious propositions:
-
“We non-believers will get a big boost in self-esteem by adopting a happy, positive name.”
-
“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.
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’? :eek:
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.”
To the extent that one is an atheist, one is not a skeptic. If one has determined that some thing is actually “true” or “false”, then one is no longer a skeptic. One has become a dogmatic.
What you’re describing is strong atheism, which I agree is dogmatic. There is also weak atheism, though.
They may. Worth a shot. A believer might be more likely to vote for a bright (who has a naturalistic worldview) rather than an atheist (who doesn’t believe in god) or an agnostic (who doesn’t seem to care). How many atheist or agnostic members of the American Congress are there? Not many, if any at all. That’s funny, there are plenty of bright celebrities and scientists, but so few bright politicians.
The term is useful. It is inclusive. A young friend of mine does not consider herself a septic. She’s simply uninterested in religion. She’s comfortable with calling herself a bright, though. She and I now have something in common.
As with other matters of political correctness, it’s up to the people involved to decide. If enough people with a naturalistic worldview care enough to insist that they are tired of being defined by a negative, that they don’t want to section an already tiny minority into several even tinier minorities, that they want to be called collectively by a short upbeat name, they can make it happen. Make that we.
Really, the first thing I thought when I finished the article was “I thought we had gotten past the point of using dark as a pejorative.” I realize that Dawkins probably didn’t concieve of it that way, but it really put me off.
~Super Gnat (dark in both senses)
This is the OP, checking back in. I have a few comments on what I’ve seen so far:
-
As people have pointed out, bright is not just a replacement for atheist, since it has a slightly different meaning. Bright excludes those who do not believe in god but have other supernatural beliefs, and it may include some agnostics. I should’ve been clearer about this.
-
The consensus opinion (or as close to a consensus as you can expect) is that the new use of bright is not a good idea. The main problem is that “bright” already has plenty of meanings, and people who use it to say that they have a naturalist world view come across as claiming that they are brighter than people with a religious world view, or that all religious people are dim.
-
There is less consensus about whether it’s a good idea to find some other new word to have the role that Randi et al. want bright to have.
Now, more of my humble opinion:
It’s obvious that coming up with a new word won’t fix everything on its own, but I think that it can be one cause of improvement, especially if it’s combined with a broader movement. Imagine if the common way to refer to people with a naturalist world view was as “godless heathens.” Then they wouldn’t be likely to get much respect or acceptance in society. “Atheist” isn’t nearly as bad as “godless heathens,” but it still shares some of the connotations. It suggests, for instance, that they are denying god or against god.
A new term like “bright” could be free of some of those connotations. It is more of a pro- term than an anti- term. Even though this just sounds like a different way of saying the same thing, it matters. People react differently to this, just like they’ll react differently to medical treatments if the options are described in terms of how many people die or in terms of how many people live.
There are other examples of times when I think that it matters what term is used for something, but they’re all pretty controversial. For instance, the PATRIOT Act and the Clean Air Act are probably harder to oppose because of their names. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are grouped together with the term “Weapons of mass destruction”, which probably tends to make people have stronger reactions against chemical weapons even when they aren’t more dangerous than conventional weapons. And there are multiple threads about whether legally sanctioned unions between homosexual couples should be called “marriage.” Even if you disagree about the importance of the name in these specific examples, you can probably come up with some others that you are more inclined to accept.
Examples relating to race are probably no less controversial, but there has been solid evidence on this topic in psychology studies. Here’s an approximate description of one of those studies, from memory. Two people, one white and one black, had a debate while several others watched. After the debate, one of the people watching (a confederate who was in on the experiment) said with some disgust in his voice, “There’s no way the pro side won.” The black person was on the pro side. Then all the people who watched answered some questions about the debaters’ debating skill. In another condition, after the debate the confederate said with some disgust in his voice “There’s no way the nigger won.” Then the observers rated the debaters’ skill. The result was that people rated the black debater as less skilled after hearing the racial slur than they did after hearing the more generic claim that he had not won.
The point: even people who are not avowedly racist tend to react different towards black people when they are referred to by a pejorative racial term than when they are referred to with a more neutral term.
The word “atheist” probably does not have nearly as powerful an effect as a racial slur or even as the phrase “godless heathen,” but I think that it does tend to have some negative connotations that a new term might not have.
I agree that atheist carries an unreasonable amount of negative baggage. I disagree that “bright” is the solution to this, because it carries complicated baggage of its own. Hence my preference for the term “rationalist.”
No, it’s certainly not as much of an epithet as “nigger”, but then again, George Bush would never have gotten away with saying about blacks what he said about atheists: “I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”
The problem is that many people try to define “atheist” as one who is against God, and further try to characterize atheism as a belief system. That’s not what atheism is, but continually protesting that it doesn’t mean those things often seems to fall on deaf ears. As an example, look how Dogface defines atheism:
He seems to believe that if one is an atheist, one must necessarily be a dogmatist. Obviously, the negative baggage is already there. Once that happens, it’s extremely difficult to reclaim the word as a positive one. Will Negro ever shed its negative baggage? - I doubt it. Sometimes, just moving on to a new word seems much more effective. That’s why I said before that I like the idea in principal. Maybe someone could come up with a better word than “bright”, though.
I also like the idea in principle.:smack:
Did you read the essays? Because actually, I didn’t see any mention of “self-esteem” at all. I believe the issue is about other people’s perceptions, not about boosting brights’ self-esteem.
Nah, I don’t see it that way at all. Did you feel that gay people were calling you “stupid” when they adopted that moniker?
Oh, please - how about some violin music? You’re NOT a minority. In case you haven’t paid attention, Republican Christians control this country. If atheists were the majority, we wouldn’t need to change people’s perceptions.
Can anyone provide an example of a name change ever helping anyone? Just one?
I cannot help but noting that calling feeble children “retarded” just resulted in “retarded” becoming an epithet, now living on in the term “tards.” I can’t help but notice that we are now on the fourth or fifth name for people with dark skin and curly hair, having trudged through “coloured,” “Negro,” “black” and now “African-American,” at least. I cannot help but notice that calling Asian people “asian-American” or calling homosexuals “gays” or any number of name changes did not make a damned bit of difference.