Are you a Bright?

[Spiffor]

Since "The Brights" suck as a name, What about the "enlightened" ? Nah, pretentious.
Well, the "illuminati" ? Mystical, it sucks.
Could we consider the "Lights" ? Erm, somthing is still lacking.

The lightbulbs ! Now that's a name !

[Arrian]

A Bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. This umbrella term includes humanists, sceptics, rationalists, atheists, agnostics, and anyone else who is free of reliance upon the supernatural for motivation or explanations.

If that is indeed the definition, then it seems to me the name should be something like "Naturalists."

By the way, it sure as hell sounds like an agnostic/atheist only club, given that last sentence.

-Arrian

[Ironikinit]

Believe me, some of the other selections are... well, I don't want to be mean, but they suck ass.

http://ankrumschultz.tripod.com/

See for yourself.

[Japher]

I am naturalistic, but I won't belong to a group that attempts to claim themselves as an internet occult...

Organized religion is not for me, nor is a political interest group based off of one; IMO claiming lack of religion is similar to claiming to be a religion...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
By the way, it sure as hell sounds like an agnostic/atheist only club, given that last sentence.

I think it may welcome those who believe in dereliction* too.

*dereliction is the idea that God had some role in the past, and may be behind the creation of the universe, but that he has left since.

[Agathon]

What about those people like me who are broadly sceptical. I have to laugh at people who forgo religion for science and then treat science like a religion, which is what "brights" seem to do IMHO. In New Zealand we have a "sceptics" society who go around debunking spoon benders and congratulating themselves on how rational they are. Unfortunately, they aren't sceptical enough for me.

Science does not "explain" things in the same way that religion does (not that I am religious: far from it); scientific theories are underdetermined and hence to a large degree a pragmatic matter. It's useful for enabling us to predict and manipulate events, but that's about it.

[Arrian]

I didn't know there was an actual term for that. Thanks, Spiff

I agree with Japher, btw - the views attributed to this group seem to match up with mine reasonably well (it is pretty broad), but I've no desire to join such a group.

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're going to Hell, Boshko.
Adios, mother****er.

So are you, and you are going there first

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I think it may welcome those who believe in dereliction* too.

*dereliction is the idea that God had some role in the past, and may be behind the creation of the universe, but that he has left since.

I thought the term is Deism.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I thought the term is Deism.

That's different. In the view of the deists God just starts the universe as one would a clock and leaves. There is no implication that this is a terrible thing as there is in the dereliction view.

[Ironikinit]

Quotes from the-brights.net:

Persons under this umbrella term tend to self-identify by varied labels, among them humanist, agnostic, atheist, skeptic, rationalist, freethinker, secular humanist, Unitarian, secular Jew, igtheist, objectivist, ethical culturist, or perhaps apatheist (uninterested in religion).

Among these Brights are physicians (many!), a Nobel Laureate, numerous professors and other academics, some celebrities (e.g., Penn & Teller), *a Presbyterian Minister, Secular Jews, Unitarians*, a Yogaist, a stealth politician (USA), a member of the European parliament, a couple of ex-Mormons, a bunch of teens, and some really well-seasoned folks (85+).

Emphasis added.

[Arrian]

a stealth politician (USA)

I call oxymoron.

-Arrian