Conquer Club

The organization has been around for a little while and caused a little stir when it first started. If you are unfamiliar with it, here's a link to the homepage.

The brights started out as an attempt to remove the negative connotation from the term "atheist," similar to what has been done with "gay" and such. The fuss, of course, comes over the choice of nomenclature. "Bright" may be taken as arrogant as it can imply that those not involved are dim. This, obviously, is not the intent, but it's not difficult to see where the opinion comes from. I side with Dennet's view on the whole thing, plus, I'm not clever enough to come up with a better name. Really, I don't have a problem with "atheist," but I'm curious to see if the connotation can be shifted.

I apologize if this is slightly US-centric... I can't really say much about the connotations of words in other countries.

Bright means smart, sharp-witted, ect.
But! If we quit using all other synonyms, and only use the adjective bright, then certainly we will dilute the words usage as a noun. For example, Eddy got an "A" on the test. Isn't he bright? We just have to that over and over a thousand times....

No, that's stupid..... We're only going to ruin the word like how gays ruined the word gay.

I don't know dude....

Juan_Bottom wrote:Bright means smart, sharp-witted, ect.
But! If we quit using all other synonyms, and only use the adjective bright, then certainly we will dilute the words usage as a noun. For example, Eddy got an "A" on the test. Isn't he bright? We just have to that over and over a thousand times....

No, that's stupid..... We're only going to ruin the word like how gays ruined the word gay.

I don't know dude....

Dennett worded it along the lines of "those who are not gay are not necessarily glum, they are straight. Those who are not brights are not dim, in the same sense."

It seems a bit too much like toeing the line to me. I wish these people had consulted me before embarking on such a task...

Neoteny wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Bright means smart, sharp-witted, ect.
But! If we quit using all other synonyms, and only use the adjective bright, then certainly we will dilute the words usage as a noun. For example, Eddy got an "A" on the test. Isn't he bright? We just have to that over and over a thousand times....

No, that's stupid..... We're only going to ruin the word like how gays ruined the word gay.

I don't know dude....

Dennett worded it along the lines of "those who are not gay are not necessarily glum, they are straight. Those who are not brights are not dim, in the same sense."

It seems a bit too much like toeing the line to me. I wish these people had consulted me before embarking on such a task...

Ditto.
Though, honestly I can't help but like the name. They must have known what they were doing.....

I think the proper term for a non-bright is 'super', as in supernatural.

Neoteny wrote:The organization has been around for a little while and caused a little stir when it first started. If you are unfamiliar with it, here's a link to the homepage.

I've never heard of it before. I have to admit I find the notion that you can have the organization's icon facing any direction you want it to is kind of interesting. But even by their own admission, they are not atheists per se, a subset of atheists, perhaps, but not atheists in general.

Of course, a great many Brights are atheists by definition (e.g., they are without belief in any gods). Many self-identify as atheists, too. But, by the same token (i.e., by definition), atheists who have worldviews that do incorporate supernatural ideas are not Brights. It helps to keep those atheists in mind. This helps to see how being a bright is something else. There are the atheists who wear magnets to ward off disease, atheists who arrange their furniture using feng shui, or make decisions by horoscopes, or plant their gardens "by the signs." These are atheists who would not be Brights. They do not have the requisite naturalistic worldview.

Mustn't have those feng shui atheists, they aren't "natural."

tzor wrote:

Neoteny wrote:The organization has been around for a little while and caused a little stir when it first started. If you are unfamiliar with it, here's a link to the homepage.

I've never heard of it before. I have to admit I find the notion that you can have the organization's icon facing any direction you want it to is kind of interesting. But even by their own admission, they are not atheists per se, a subset of atheists, perhaps, but not atheists in general.

Of course, a great many Brights are atheists by definition (e.g., they are without belief in any gods). Many self-identify as atheists, too. But, by the same token (i.e., by definition), atheists who have worldviews that do incorporate supernatural ideas are not Brights. It helps to keep those atheists in mind. This helps to see how being a bright is something else. There are the atheists who wear magnets to ward off disease, atheists who arrange their furniture using feng shui, or make decisions by horoscopes, or plant their gardens "by the signs." These are atheists who would not be Brights. They do not have the requisite naturalistic worldview.

Mustn't have those feng shui atheists, they aren't "natural."

Those guys are weird anyhow. The idea was to remove the connotation, which I'm not sure has happened (and I'm not really sure I care...).

MeDeFe wrote:I think the proper term for a non-bright is 'super', as in supernatural.

Neoteny wrote:Those guys are weird anyhow. The idea was to remove the connotation, which I'm not sure has happened (and I'm not really sure I care...).

"A journey of a thousand miles......"

It really gets confusing fast because of the many meanings we give to the word natural. Not super natural doesn't mean natural. A bright, for example should have no problem with atrificial fertilizers or gene altered foodstuffs even though lots of people would claim that they aren't "natural."

tzor wrote:It really gets confusing fast because of the many meanings we give to the word natural. Not super natural doesn't mean natural. A bright, for example should have no problem with atrificial fertilizers or gene altered foodstuffs even though lots of people would claim that they aren't "natural."

What does man-made have to do with supernatural?

MeDeFe wrote:

tzor wrote:It really gets confusing fast because of the many meanings we give to the word natural. Not super natural doesn't mean natural. A bright, for example should have no problem with atrificial fertilizers or gene altered foodstuffs even though lots of people would claim that they aren't "natural."

What does man-made have to do with supernatural?

That's my point. They really are against anything "supernatural" but in defining "natural" as that which is not "supernatural" they really do seem to invite people to think they are related to Euell Gibbons.

tzor wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

tzor wrote:It really gets confusing fast because of the many meanings we give to the word natural. Not super natural doesn't mean natural. A bright, for example should have no problem with atrificial fertilizers or gene altered foodstuffs even though lots of people would claim that they aren't "natural."

What does man-made have to do with supernatural?

That's my point. They really are against anything "supernatural" but in defining "natural" as that which is not "supernatural" they really do seem to invite people to think they are related to Euell Gibbons.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

Neoteny wrote:I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

in the United States, the general use of the term "natural" is in "all natural ingredients" and the opposite is "atrificial." A naturalist is someone who studies nature and is in general considered something of a tree hugger in the same vein as an environmentalist.

Thus statements like "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview" would give the average imperson the idea that he spends his life hiking through the forest or otherwise living in mother nature (which ironically wouold be offensive to a bright) eating all "natural" food free from artificial stuff. Where in reality he is probably some guy in the city, designing the next crop of genetically modified food.

tzor wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

in the United States, the general use of the term "natural" is in "all natural ingredients" and the opposite is "atrificial." A naturalist is someone who studies nature and is in general considered something of a tree hugger in the same vein as an environmentalist.

Thus statements like "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview" would give the average imperson the idea that he spends his life hiking through the forest or otherwise living in mother nature (which ironically wouold be offensive to a bright) eating all "natural" food free from artificial stuff. Where in reality he is probably some guy in the city, designing the next crop of genetically modified food.

Well, I don't know that anyone would get offended by that. I don't imagine any crucifixions would occur at any rate. And I'm still not really sure what your point is. Do you have a beef with the phrase?

I follow you TZOR(?), but I can't see where you are applying that too?

I didn't see where the Bright's labeled themselves as "naturalist/"

How about "faith challenged", "bright short bus", or "the voids"?


"bright" is just not fitting.

tzor wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I'm not exactly sure what your point is here.

in the United States, the general use of the term "natural" is in "all natural ingredients" and the opposite is "atrificial." A naturalist is someone who studies nature and is in general considered something of a tree hugger in the same vein as an environmentalist.

Thus statements like "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview" would give the average imperson the idea that he spends his life hiking through the forest or otherwise living in mother nature (which ironically wouold be offensive to a bright) eating all "natural" food free from artificial stuff. Where in reality he is probably some guy in the city, designing the next crop of genetically modified food.

So a naturalist is not someone who believes there's a natural (as opposed to supernatural (magical)) explanation for every phenomenon? Because that's how I've roughly understood the term.

jay_a2j wrote:How about "faith challenged", "bright short bus", or "the voids"?


"bright" is just not fitting.

No, you're right. Daniel Dennett is obviously a complete idiot.

jay_a2j wrote:How about "faith challenged", "bright short bus", or "the voids"?


"bright" is just not fitting.

Damn those dim atheist and their science!

MeDeFe wrote:So a naturalist is not someone who believes there's a natural (as opposed to supernatural (magical)) explanation for every phenomenon? Because that's how I've roughly understood the term.

I've always understood the term as "a person committed to studying nature or natural history." A lot of environmental groups will use this definition in their use of the term. Some dictionaries cite that definition as "dated;" others do not. I would wagre that the average person in the United States would probably associate this definition to the word as we have a lot of environmental groups that have zoologists and botanists as contributing members.

tzor wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:So a naturalist is not someone who believes there's a natural (as opposed to supernatural (magical)) explanation for every phenomenon? Because that's how I've roughly understood the term.

I've always understood the term as "a person committed to studying nature or natural history." A lot of environmental groups will use this definition in their use of the term. Some dictionaries cite that definition as "dated;" others do not. I would wagre that the average person in the United States would probably associate this definition to the word as we have a lot of environmental groups that have zoologists and botanists as contributing members.

I'm not really sure I see any issue with this. The people who understand the philosophical definition of naturalism are the ones who are going to be interested in the organization. It's then up to these people to explain it to the "unwashed masses" (the perspective you seem to be taking) what the definitions are. And even if people don't understand the intended meaning of the word, the "tree-hugging environmentalist" is hardly an offensive stereotype (despite IzMan's narrow-minded opinions otherwise) especially when you consider the alternative. Plus it doesn't take much to correct the mistake. I would hazard that even religious leaders familiar with the nuances of the word would be willing to clear things up for their congregations.