Sam Harris

Dear All,

As a theist, holding on for dear life to my out-dated, irrational, ignorant, immoral, and asinine beliefs, at least I don't call myself something tacky and garish as the term "brights." 

http://www.the-brights.net/

Garish is a good way to describe it.  We're the bright ones!  We are the intelligent and quick-witted ones!  Good for you.  I'm glad that you are so impressed with yourselves and your ideas.

But I had better be more obsequious (oblong and non-clairvoyant) when I relate to you.  After all you are destined to take over the world and put us theists in the cultural zoos where we belong!

Long live the Brights—the Saviors of Humanity!

Bluejway

I don’t like it either.

Atheist isn’t that much better, but I’m sticking with it.

What about “naturalist.” 

naturalist |?na ch ?r?list| noun 1 an expert in or student of natural history. 2 a person who practices naturalism in art or literature. • a person who adopts philosophical naturalism.

[quote author=“bluejway”]Dear All,

As a theist, holding on for dear life to my out-dated, irrational, ignorant, immoral, and asinine beliefs, at least I don’t call myself something tacky and garish as the term “brights.” 

http://www.the-brights.net/

Garish is a good way to describe it.  We’re the bright ones!  We are the intelligent and quick-witted ones!  Good for you.  I’m glad that you are so impressed with yourselves and your ideas.

But I had better be more obsequious (oblong and non-clairvoyant) when I relate to you.  After all you are destined to take over the world and put us theists in the cultural zoos where we belong!

Long live the Brights—the Saviors of Humanity!

Bluejway

Daniel Dennett has a tin ear, doesn’t he? There is simply no way to declare yourself “a bright” without sounding bumptious and self-congratulatory.

I don’t understand the need so many nonbelievers have for a label. We don’t have a designation for people who disbelieve in Marduk, or Ahura-Mazda. Why do we need a special word for people who don’t subscribe the currently fashionable worship of Yahweh?

If someone asks about my religion, I simply say “Don’t have one, don’t need one”.

Ben

The neologism (bright [n.]) has been serving as an effective mechanism for publicizing the existence of the constituency. Discussion regarding the term engenders awareness and leads to additional persons enrolling to be counted as constituents. Beyond the immediate enterprise, the desire of the Brights’ Net is to act worldwide to galvanize a constituency of Brights within any society that is otherwise permeated with supernaturalism, culminating in, over a long haul, social acceptance, civic recognition, and actual influence for persons whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

Certainly succeeded in getting your attention, didn’t it Bluejayway?

I don’t like the term “Bright” either. It certainly does sound self-congratulatory to me. For that matter, I consider myself a product of the Enlightenment. That term although apt also lacks a certain humility.* As I keep saying, whatever your position is on controversial matters, some of the people who agree with you are geniuses and some are at the other end of the bell curve.

I don’t mind calling myself an atheist. In fact, I enjoy it. It’s a sort of in-your-face response to believers who generally think that mentioning their faith is perfectly acceptable socially but frown on candor from me. As I use it, “atheist” implies more than rejecting the mythical Yahweh, but also the other mythical beings —Jupiter, Odin, Ra, Quetzalcoatl, Maui, Shiva, and on and on and on.

*

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment The Age of Enlightenment refers to either the eighteenth century in European and American philosophy, or the longer period including the seventeenth century and the Age of Reason. It can more narrowly refer to the historical intellectual movement The Enlightenment, which advocated Reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and logic, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the universe. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that same kind of systematic thinking could apply to all forms of human activity.

Yes, yes, count me in. I would modify the description, though, to say that this allows humans to obtain successively more complete and more accurate approximations to objective truth about the universe. Let’s hear it for open minds. Further, the useful tools include Experience (the scientific method) and not just Reason (formal logic).

(Edited to correct a spelling error.)

I think bright is the worst term I have ever heard actually.  It repulses me to say it, think it, or ever call my child it.  Who would do that?  What a horrible term of description.  How about something like…atheist…that works.

Would never use this term and would be embarrassed for anyone who would apply it to themselves.

I think SOB might be more self-deprecating. You know, “Suspension of Belief”. I know some of the believers here think of us as a bunch of SOBs.

You guys can do what you like. It’s not like all atheists play on the same team. Dawkins says it’s like herding cats. SOB is what I am going with.

You could also say you’re in HOC (herd of cats).

Or be WAGs (Without a God).

Be all WET (We Eschew Theism).

Come on! Everybody!

I like Bright and I think of all of you as being brights. It just captures your essence

[quote author=“frankr”]I like Bright and I think of all of you as being brights. It just captures your essence

You Deity-Utilizing Manichaean Biblethumper, you!

For All Good Things

[quote author=“mudfoot”]For All Good Things

Fanatically Adores Religious Things

Fanatically Against Religious Things

Talks Idiotically To Superbeings Using Prayer.

Deity-Worshiping Egotistical Evangelical Bumpkin.

Scripture-Twisting Unit Product of Intelligent Design.

Funny, I just came upon the-brights website yesterday for the first time, and something about it bugged me.  The term, for sure,  but something anti-septic and kind of Stepford Wives. 

Not that I disagree with their cause.  The name is a big arrogant, though. I like atheist.  It has clout.

I never liked bright either.

These days I kind of think of myself as an anticipatory post-theist, but that is more of a mouthful than I would use in conversation.

-Matt

Well sheesh, who does  love this silly name, then?! Are we who cringe at in the minority? Do most infidels just love it to death?