Brights?

Love Dawkins, BUT I am uncomfortable with referring to oneself as a 'bright', it smacks of referring to oneself as an ALPHA. Thoughts?

Tags: Bright

Views: 8

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lindsay on September 1, 2008 at 7:14pm
YES....but I like what Sam Harris says, that the burden sdhould be on the believer. Why should I define the things I am not? Asantaist? Azeusist? It would be a long list.
Permalink Reply by Dawn K on September 2, 2008 at 3:24pm
I agree. I'm not entirely comfortable labeling myself with what I am not. I just find it a more simple term to use in every day life. I'm still working for the best positive label for myself. Maybe I'll get on board with Bright yet.
Permalink Reply by Wolf Martinus on September 1, 2008 at 2:16am
The term does have it's uses if applied in negation to others:
- "I noticed you're not a bright when you started promoting this homeopathy stuff"

I wouldn't apply the term to describe myself though and if asked start right away with: "I hold a naturalistic worldview", an explanation you'd probably have to give anyway after the "Bright"-introduction.
Permalink Reply by Lindsay on September 1, 2008 at 2:34am
Ibstead of 'bright' how about just rational vs. irrational
Permalink Reply by Wolf Martinus on September 1, 2008 at 4:02am
Being human I know that I'm pretty irrational at times.
But I'm making an effort not to be intentionally ignorant.
Permalink Reply by Dave on September 1, 2008 at 3:52am
Doesn't apply to me as I'm only 40W.

Suppose you could call me a 'Dim'.

'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.'
Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on September 1, 2008 at 5:39am
Ahhh, Dave me ol' mate, I don't think you're dim at all - perhaps you're just 'energy saving'. ;-)
Permalink Reply by Lindsay on September 1, 2008 at 9:42am
Then I must be 'flickering' :)
Permalink Reply by BADWOLF on September 1, 2008 at 5:00am
i dont like the term brights it reminds me of a title a cult would use
Permalink Reply by Lindsay on September 1, 2008 at 9:43am
YES, this was exactly how it struck me..
Permalink Reply by Chrys Stevenson on September 1, 2008 at 5:46am
I'm also very uncomfortable with the term 'brights'. To me it seems elitist and divisive. I also think it is condescending to Christians and other believers. There is a huge difference between being unintelligent and uninformed, and I think that a lack of knowledge, not intelligence, is what separates believers and non-believers. Believers are not necessarily unintelligent nor uneducated. However, they are uninformed - whether wilfully or not. I was reading Dawkins' site the other day and there was a post from a young man who said that before he read Dawkins, he had no idea that there were people who thought the world was more than 6000 years old! This is why so many Christians who undertake to study the Bible with intellectual honesty and scholarly rigour end up as atheists.

I love Dawkins and admire what he has done for atheism, but I'm afraid the idea of calling ourselves 'brights' is one I cannot agree with.
Permalink Reply by Lindsay on September 1, 2008 at 9:45am
Bravo and well stated. I firmly believe that believers stop believeing because of just internal realization, 'waking up; which is what I am sure most of us did. Labeling ourselves as somehow smarter or more enlightened is just antagonistic.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service