HOW SCIENCE MOTIVATES BRIGHTS

Every time we hear of some new element of the universe, whether it be fuzzy magnetic bubbles at the end of the solar system, the formulation of antimatter at CERN in Switzerland or the development of a potential Quantum Computer - it makes me, and many other brights, happy to be alive at this time.

That sounds much like 'indigo children' or some other wildly nonscientific lingo. Brights? Show me the science on that one.

When I first read that .. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett were trying to get the world to stop calling religious unbelievers “atheists” .. and start calling them “brights,” I had my doubts ... In his original New York Times op-ed .. Dennett wrote, “Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: ‘I'm a bright’ is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.” ... But who did Dennett think he was kidding? ... As ABC News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the “brights” campaign, “I don’t think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant” ...
Not Too “Bright"
Chris Mooney
October 15, 2003
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/not_too_bright/

Can it be that you really don't see how arrogant that is? Or is your urge to evangelism for your ideology just so burning that you can't help yourself?

..."elect," "enlightened" or any other self-laudatory expressions religious people use.

Nevertheless, I do find the term "brights" to be a bit much.

I'm not going to find much to praise about someone who says "...we chosen people..." or "...as a member of the elect..."

I had this idea once that instead of having smokers and nonsmokers, we should have smokers and cleans. But nonsmoker is probably a better term because it is the default position. Doing nothing results in not smoking. The affirmative act of smoking is the deviation from the default position. Without indoctrination, atheism is the default position while belief in gods can be defined as a deviation from that norm. Now, that may oversimplify things as there is some reason to think that some level of belief may be the natural result of how we are wired.

Frankly, "brights" is just a way for nonbelievers to say, "You're self-appointed label is pretty arrogant, so how do you like our arrogant self-appointed label?" I prefer the term "skeptic" because it is more descriptive of my overall philosophy than simply pointing to one conclusion about one subject. It also distinguishes thoughtful atheists from the atheism-as-an-article-of-Stalinist-faith variety.

Face it, every religion teaches that they, the followers, are better than everyone else

You can make up excuses, but in the end, there is ALWAYS the assumption that one is better because they believe in X

Brights is a much better definition than Atheist - why should we define ourselves in opposition to anything?

that you have found fulfillment and a useful purpose in life as a paint brush.

Now for the big question: are you sable, bristle, or synthetic?

"Bright" does have a tone of arrogance.

...where they put colored pegs into a panel to make a luminous picture.

Not that I would know, of course

:)

Everything I saw did look as if it were lit by a million neon lights....or so I'm told

Definitely not a fan of "bright".

foglight.