Total Comments 3 | Start A New Comment |
Post Info | Comment |
Posted By: Bill Atkinson Posted On: Mar 19, 2005 Views: 1390 | "Other" I vote for the term "Other". I am an Other. You are AnOther. We are all BrOthers. The Natural World is our MOther. "Other" is already in use in the Muslim world: I believe it is the English translation of the Arabic word for infidel- meaning not one of "us". "Other" is non-pejorative, neutral, not cute, not self aggrandizing, unpretentious, and this proposed use is sufficiently unorthodox to command attention. Bill Atkinson |
Posted By: Michel Virard Posted On: Dec 1, 2004 Views: 1456 | Reasons for choosing "Bright" Ce following is an exchange of e-mails (last year) between myself and the original promoters of the name Bright (Mynga & Paul, who manned the web site). --------------------------------- (Messages in chronological order) 1> -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Virard [mailto:mvirard@attglobal.net] > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:52 PM > To: Paul Geisert > Subject: Re: New Bright signs up at the-brights.net! > > Hello, > > Thank you for the welcome. For non-mainstream individuals (at least in > the US), it is always a warm feeling to discover a community of like > minded people. For the brights, I had the same reaction I had more > than 10 years ago when I discovered Les Sceptiques du Québec: I had to > be part of it NOW! > > Yet, I do have a nagging question in the back of my mind: knowing that > the choice of "brights" to re-label non-believers in the supernatural > was obviously going to cause waves of sarcastic comments, was there a > deliberate desire to provoke the believers when the term was chosen ? > One could certainly have chosen a less provocative yet positive term, > even going to a pure neologism, free of undesirable subliminal > meanings in English (as well as in other main languages), don't you > think ? On the other hand, perhaps making waves is actually the name > of the game... > > Regards > > Michel Virard, ing. > Symtec international > Montreal QC Canada > Tel (514) 343 4571 > mvirard@attglobal.net Paul Geisert & Mynga Futrell wrote: 2> Michel > > Sorry it took so long to get back to you, we are inundated with > Brights work. > > You are right on all counts. The name is a problem and a blessing. > Here is some canned thoughts on the matter. > > Thanks for your comments; we get a fair number of people expressing > the same idea. > > In the chaotic nature of society, the word Bright is giving us media > exposure like no other word could. We are not opposed to a change in > the future when the Brights Net matures. After all, it is the > concepts of the Brights Net that are importanteveryone working > together for social and political change. > > Here is how another Bright responded to the charge of arrogance. > > Ravi: I went through the material on the Brights presently available > on the net. Quite interesting. It confirms my interest in being a > member. The criticism that comes up again and again is on the meaning > of 'bright' that means intelligent. I can see the force of the > objection, but I doubt it is as bad as it is made out to be. Most > religions allow their leaders to pass off with ludicrous titles like > 'Honorable', 'Venerable', 'Worship', 'Holiness', 'Grace' and other > such nonsense. It seems that we are so used to this kind of prattle > that we no longer even notice it. 'Brights' goes nowhere as far. So > what is the problem? > > If you think Bright carries a lot of baggage because some say the word > is arrogant, please consider the cornucopia of secondary meaning given > to the words atheist, agnostic, and secular humanist. And, worse, > think of the negative meaning associated with what religionist refer > to the community of reason: godless, irreligious, nonbelievers. So the > Brights should be scolded because we use a word that others can > possibly interpret as intelligent and perhaps a little arrogant? > Finally, words such as freethinker, atheist, naturalist, and humanist > carry eons of baggage which cannot be shed. Each has multiple > meanings. The movement needed a clean and neat new word. > > Michael Shermer (who writes the skeptics column in Scientific > American) did a series of small studies and focus groups. Thus far, no > one has come up with a better word than Bright. All things considered, > he concluded that The word is Bright. > > Here are two brief comments from Brights when they signed into the > Brights constituency. Colin put it: "I have come all the way from > "What a stupid idea" to my present thoughts that Bright is a very good > idea, in the months since the convention. So one can change in spite > of my 75 years!!" Roger gets the last word: I am excited by your > ideas and after initially recoiling at the name Bright I have > quickly accommodated to its wit and brilliance. > > Mynga and Paul > > ----------------------- > > Paul Geisert (He is a Bright) > > Mynga Futrell (She is a Bright) > > (They are two Brights in Sacramento, California > > and part of a growing constituency of Brights at > > http://www.the-brights.net) > > A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic-- > > free of supernatural and mystical elements. Brights > > base their ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview. > 3) Thank you for taking time to answer me. I can imagine you got some mail... The answers you gave me are all well considered opinions and, yes, I will support and defend the Bright name for the time being. If one has to change later, as you said, we can always do so: we do not have a holly scripture to abide by. The beauty of a scientific idea is that it is always revisable and thus a bright idea should be revisable too. Michel Virard Montreal |
Posted By: Arwyn Posted On: Feb 5, 2004 Views: 1569 | Poll choices I was divided between Freethinkers and Rationalists. I've known religionists who are also freethinkers (they think and judge for themselves, but they still "believe", and I've known non-believers who I would not call rational, convinced of the truth of all kinds of wierd conspiracy theories, alien visitations and other irrational stuff. So I picked Rationalists, because I've known more religious freethinkers than I've known irrational non-believers. |