The Brights Movement

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Bright" is kind of obnoxious; I agree. I like the idea of the movement, but it should've been named something else. I'm not sure what, but even "apes" would have been better. In fact, I kind of like apes.

I don't see what was wrong with "skeptic".

And as far as the issue goes of the term "atheist" having negative connotations, I think that the way to combat that is by simply using the term.

For instance, in small ways, I make no secret of the fact that I'm an atheist. I do things like put it in my Facebook profile or answer honestly when I'm asked. I think that if lots and lots of others did the same, that would help the image of non-theists better than any public relations exercise like this whole "Brights" nonsense.

I think the way to make people think better of non-theists and the irreligious is to simply let people know that many of the people they think pretty highly of already are non-theists or irreligious.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

In fact, I kind of like apes.

Haha! Me too! I would almost want to join that movement regardless of my belief in God. It's kind of witty with a sense of purpose.

 

[McBell]

What do people think of the movement? I support a movement to do its stated goals. But the name brights, and the suggestion that atheists should be called brights or supers, is in my opinion, ridiculously pretentious and pompous.

Seems as though the name was specifically chosen for its appeal to emotion effects.

 

[dogsgod]

Apes is good.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't feel comfortable calling myself "Bright". Wouldn't "Humanist" accurately describe the political and social beliefs -- i.e., the important beliefs, as opposed to the amusing philosophical beliefs -- of most of the atheists on this forum?

I sometimes feel that this idea that we need to fight for the equality of secular people is a waste of energy .... secular people are basically treated equally in the U.S., and insofar as there are problems, they are dwarfed by the larger problems of health care, foreign wars, jobs, education, corporate money, etc. If discrimination does occur against secular people it certainly does not prevent them from the elite spheres of business, academia, government, military, etc. If we are going to talk about discrimination, let's talk about the fact that 17 out of 100 U.S. Senators are female while 50 out of 100 of the population is female, and so on.

How many atheists on this forum, honestly, feel some sort of massive gulf between themselves and the liberal Christians or Jews who agree with them socially and politically? (Or conservative, as the case may be.)

 

[Smoke]

How many atheists on this forum, honestly, feel some sort of massive gulf between themselves and the liberal Christians or Jews who agree with them socially and politically? (Or conservative, as the case may be.)

I often feel that a massive gulf separates me from my fellow progressives, but I think it has more to do with my being gay than with my being an atheist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I often feel that a massive gulf separates me from my fellow progressives, but I think it has more to do with my being gay than with my being an atheist.

Could you elaborate? I'm very interested to hear your feelings on this.

You spoke of a separation from your fellow progressives -- not just religious progressives, but also atheist progressives who are straight?

 

[nrg]

I honestly don't want atheists to gather around a set of views because they are atheists. I know the Brights movement is not doing that, but I just felt like stating that anyway. The reason is that I believe atheism doesn't lead to a moral pathway. Atheism doesn't justify anything, neither killing nor saving someone's life.

In my opinion, the Brights movement should distance istelf from being labeled an organization of atheists and do everything in it's power to be recognized as a group promoting naturalistic values.

 

[Smoke]

Could you elaborate? I'm very interested to hear your feelings on this.

You spoke of a separation from your fellow progressives -- not just religious progressives, but also atheist progressives who are straight?

There seem to be a lot of progressives who think that LGBT issues are peripheral issues of no great importance, and that we should be content with an incrementalist approach under which we might achieve full equality sometime in the next fifty to one hundred years.

We are always being told, for instance, that we must support the Democrats, even though the Democrats consistently break their promises and betray their LGBT constituents, because the important thing is to support liberalism in general. LGBT issues are just not important enough to warrant criticizing liberal institutions. We are expected to give our time, our money and our labor, be nice and quiet, and wait for "the proper time" to demand equality.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Interesting, Smoke. I'm reminded of King's letter from Birmingham jail:

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never."
...
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
​

 

[Smoke]

Interesting, Smoke. I'm reminded of King's letter from Birmingham jail:

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never."
...
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
​

I understand where he was coming from.

 

[dogsgod]

I think atheists and theist need new identities, how about "dims" and "dimmers"?

 

[Jeremiah]

I find the name goofy but I support some of the ideas of it. I support atheists being more organized and publicly active in general if not this specific movement.

Yes, because "being more organized" has worked so well for the religious.

I think "getting organized" inevitably leads to elitism and such "organizations" ultimately only end up dividing people.

 

[linwood]

What do people think of the movement? I support a movement to do its stated goals. But the name brights, and the suggestion that atheists should be called brights or supers, is in my opinion, ridiculously pretentious and pompous.

I agree with you.

Not one of Dawkins better moments.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Yes, because "being more organized" has worked so well for the religious.

I think "getting organized" inevitably leads to elitism and such "organizations" ultimately only end up dividing people.

Families=human organization. Nomadic societies=human organization, settled agricultural civilizations=human organization. Need I go on? People not being perfect as an excuse to not organize is moronic.

 

[Jeremiah]

Families=human organization. Nomadic societies=human organization, settled agricultural civilizations=human organization. Need I go on? People not being perfect as an excuse to not organize is moronic.

We are not talking about families, nomads or civilization; we are talking about a view on gods. Please try to keep things in context.

Some of you seem to be trying, very hard, to turn atheism into a religion. But what do you expect to happen? Religion is not going to disappear, people are not going to stop believing in gods. All that is going to do is create another religion to throw in the mix.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

We are not talking about families, nomads or civilization; we are talking about a view on gods. Please try to keep things in context.

Some of you seem to be trying, very hard, to turn atheism into a religion. But what do you expect to happen? Religion is not going to disappear, people are not going to stop believing in gods. All that is going to do is create another religion to throw in the mix.

No. You bashed organizing in general so actually yeah it does apply. Just because you have a problem with some of the potential downsides of organizing does not mean that that organization on any level is a bad thing. If you don't want a ridiculous argument called out. Don't make a ridiculous argument.

 

[Jeremiah]

No. You bashed organizing in general so actually yeah it does apply. Just because you have a problem with some of the potential downsides of organizing does not mean that that organization on any level is a bad thing. If you don't want a ridiculous argument called out. Don't make a ridiculous argument.

"You bashed organizing in general so actually yeah it does apply."

You may need to take a more careful look; don't forget to take into account the thread it is posted in and the post I was responding to. Besides, it is, also, perfectly appropriate for me to provide clarification on something I said. But I am not going to sit here and waste my time trying to teach you how to read.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

"You bashed organizing in general so actually yeah it does apply."

You may need to take a more careful look; don't forget to take into account the thread it is posted in and the post I was responding to. Besides, it is, also, perfectly appropriate for me to provide clarification on something I said. But I am not going to sit here and waste my time trying to teach you how to read.

Your argument was organizing has downsides because it's corruptible, ergo atheists should not organize. It's was a bad argument then and it still is.

 

[Jeremiah]

Your argument was organizing has downsides because it's corruptible, ergo atheists should not organize. It's was a bad argument then and it still is.

No, that was not my argument; I said it leads to elitism and it ends up dividing people; I never said anything about corruption. Also, it is simple criticism, I already know an atheist religion is likely inevitable. After all, atheist are humans just like theist, and it is only natural that they act just like theist. And just like the theist, many seem to believe they are empowered above others by the truth.

Btw, I do like how you turn to arguing semantics though, that was very theistic of you.