Nonbelievers' Newfangled Nom de Guerre Dimwitted

The Rocky Mountain News ^ | February 7, 2004 | Linda Seebach

[quidnunc]

What do people call themselves if they aren't religious? Many things, in fact, with slight distinctions of meaning; atheists, agnostics, nonbelievers, skeptics, freethinkers, secular humanists. Not a really positive term among them (except when said people are talking to each other).

And then there are words that other people use about them, which are even less positive: heretics, infidels, irreligious, unbelievers, godless.

Certain persons of this description, having decided they won't get proper respect until they get a better name, and taking as their model the adoption of the term "gay" for homosexual, have decided to call themselves "brights."

That's dim.

If asked "What's a bright?" a bright would reply, according to Richard Dawkins, "A person whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview." Dawkins' essay is available at www.edge.org, along with one by Daniel Dennett; scroll down to July 23, 2003. Or go to www.the-brights.com if you want to sign up.

I'm fine with the definition, which fits me. I want nothing to do with the effort to establish the term, which could hardly be better calibrated to make people think even less well of the people who choose to use it.

"I'm a bright" and (unspoken), "You're a dim."

A colleague who is more of a historian than I points out that this technique has been known to work. When we talk about "the Enlightenment" we are in effect accepting the judgment of those who named it that their foes were "the unenlightened." But it still seems to me there is a considerable downside risk to pushing the "bright" meme.

-snip-

[Prime Choice]

Certain persons of this description, having decided they won't get proper respect until they get a better name, and taking as their model the adoption of the term "gay" for homosexual, have decided to call themselves "brights."

They've really got to work on not confusing their R's and L's.

It's pronounced "blight," kids...

[Aeronaut]

Certain persons of this (Non-believing) description, having decided they won't get proper respect until they get a better name, and taking as their model the adoption of the term "gay" for homosexual, have decided to call themselves "brights."

So, a non-believing person who is also a leftist, is he a dim-bright, or a bright-dim?

[counterpunch]

I don't see how "free thinker" "agnostic" or even "atheist" is a negative term.
Atheist means exactly what it says: not having a theology.
I've read about the term "brights" before and as a non-religious person myself, I think it's ridiculous.

[Chris Talk]

"The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God."

"The Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom."

Why is it the brightest kids always come from religious homes?

[Servant of the 9]

"The Rational"

So9

[Squawk 8888]

No way am I ever gonna call myself a "bright". The fact that I don't share the religious beliefs of others is no reason to insult the devout, many of whom have earned a great deal of my respect.

[orionblamblam]

> Why is it the brightest kids always come from religious homes?

Never known that to be true.

The brightest kids tend to come from good homes, not the same as *religious* homes.

[ThinkDifferent]

I've read about the term "brights" before and as a non-religious person myself, I think it's ridiculous.

Ditto.

[FoxInSocks]

So, a non-believing person who is also a leftist, is he a dim-bright, or a bright-dim?

Perhaps non-believing isn't the best word to use in this particular thread. :-)

[Chris Talk]

By definition, a home with no religion is not a good home for kids to grow up in, no matter HOW much money they have.

[orionblamblam]

Ill informed speculation, based on no evidence.

DU welcomes you.

[Chris Talk]

That opinion of mine that you do not like, has majority support on THIS board, and virtually NO support on DU board.

[orionblamblam]

> That opinion of mine that you do not like, has majority support on THIS board,

Irrelevant.

Facts are stubborn things. Clinging to ideology for no better reason than to have an ideology to cling to... a tactic in full force on the Left.

Fact is, a religious home does not in itself make better or worse, smarter or dumber children. Home schooling would go far... but that does not require religion.

[Chris Talk]

Nearly all home schoolers are religious. Without this motivation, why would they particularly CARE how the kids turned out?

[Chris Talk]

The fear of the LORD is the BEGINNING of wisdom.

[orionblamblam]

Wow. Your apparent belief that religion is the only thing that would motivate a parent to care for their children speaks volumes about you.

You have my condolensces.

[FoxInSocks]

Without this [religious] motivation, why would they particularly CARE how the kids turned out?

Love for their children is one motivation that comes immediately to mind.

[Chris Talk]

Love their children, and then bring them up alone and afraid in a world they never made, without any religious orientation to console them?

True, the children can always throw over a religious tradition if they wish, once they are grown.

But NOTHING CAN GIVE THEM A RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND if their parents did NOT, not even if as adults they turn out to WANT one! One MUST give the children a religious training in order to preserve for them the CHOICE as adults, whether to be religious or not.

"If you forget ME, I will forget your Children, saith the Lord." --book of Hosea

[rustbucket]

Love their children, and then bring them up alone and afraid in a world they never made, without any religious orientation to console them?

Afraid? Afraid?? Perhaps of the dark when I was two. Does religion help on that?