DiscussMormonism.com

Does anyone else think the relatively new 'Brights' movement is sickeningly pretentious?

There's little doubt that many people who identify themselves as Brights are intelligent, but is 'Brights' the best name for a group of atheists? Is there some sort of IQ requirement for being a Bright? I don't think there is. So, does being an atheist automatically render someone bright? By implication, do atheists calling themselves 'Brights' label theists or hopeful agnostics dull? Or dim, perhaps?

To me, there are better identifiers for atheists who want a more positive label that isn't tied to religion. Why use the pompous 'Brights'? There are undoubtedly numerous highly intelligent theists who are certainly as bright, if not brighter than the Brights. To their credit, there are also many atheists who do not necessarily approve of the Brights movement and who do not self-identify as Brights.

I'm curious to know what the consensus, or non-consensus of the board is.

Dimly yours,

KA

the bright movement was killed off by its first proponents Randi and Shermer shortly after it began. The term Skeptic is adequate for describing the same group.

And yah, its as pretentious as hell.

Dennett said that theists might be referred to as "supers" for their belief in the super-natural.

I also remember hearing that this idea was modeled after the homosexual movement taking their identity from the word "gay". The word "bright" was chosen to reflect the age of enlightment beginning a few centruies ago.

I got a kick out of people referring to the brights movement as a "gay" idea *

* Note: not that there's anything wrong with being gay unless of course you promise not to engage in homosexual activities which LDS members do just as they promise to obstain from tea.

KimberlyAnn wrote:Does anyone else think the relatively new 'Brights' movement is sickeningly pretentious?

No more pretentious than a certain religious group calling themselves "Saints."

KimberlyAnn wrote:Does anyone else think the relatively new 'Brights' movement is sickeningly pretentious?

There's little doubt that many people who identify themselves as Brights are intelligent, but is 'Brights' the best name for a group of atheists? Is there some sort of IQ requirement for being a Bright? I don't think there is. So, does being an atheist automatically render someone bright? By implication, do atheists calling themselves 'Brights' label theists or hopeful agnostics dull? Or dim, perhaps?

To me, there are better identifiers for atheists who want a more positive label that isn't tied to religion. Why use the pompous 'Brights'? There are undoubtedly numerous highly intelligent theists who are certainly as bright, if not brighter than the Brights. To their credit, there are also many atheists who do not necessarily approve of the Brights movement and who do not self-identify as Brights.

I'm curious to know what the consensus, or non-consensus of the board is.

Dimly yours,

KA

I have to say that I like every single thing about the movement... except the name, for the exact reason that it would communicate this unintended meaning to people (as demonstrated quite reasonably in your post). I registered on their website and logged into their forums a few months ago, and somebody made a post very similar to yours. Some people chirped in with agreement, others not, but they said they were too well established to do anything about it.

Meh, what can you do?

It's important to note that the name is most certainly not intended to mean they think they're smarter than other people, and they aren't trying to disabuse people of their faith. They are simply an equal rights movement for people with a naturalistic worldview (atheists, agnostics, or anyone else who may hold that view), and that's about it.

The self-described brights claim that the name is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The self-described brights claim that the name is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

Should you change your name to "a light in the outhouse"?

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The self-described brights claim that the name is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

They are willing to call others "supers". Perhaps it isn't about intelligence so much as what I mentioned: the enlightment which started a few centuries ago.

A Light in the Darkness wrote:The self-described brights claim that the name is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

LOL...

The self-described Mormons claim that the church is true is not meant to imply anything about their relative intelligence. To the less credulous among us, that is uncharitably a laughable lie and charitably a fib.

Dr. Shades wrote:

KimberlyAnn wrote:Does anyone else think the relatively new 'Brights' movement is sickeningly pretentious?

No more pretentious than a certain religious group calling themselves "Saints."

True. Calling one's self a saint is pretentious. How embarrassing that I labeled myself as such for so long! At least I finally figured things out and no longer consider myself a saint. But relinquishing sainthood is no real loss. It's much more fun being a sinner!

KA