Teuton wrote:

210karman wrote:
On what basis do you imply that atheists may believe in in the existence of Bigfoot, Orcs, Miracles, supernatural Powers and in this sense they are different from "brights".

The simple reason is that atheism consists in nothing more than the nonbelief in the existence or the belief in the nonexistence of God or other deities. That is, whatever it is, if it's not a god or deity, atheists may believe in its existence.

I think your point is solely based on the dictionary definition of the word atheist. So using the same logic please explain how "bright" equates to what Snowman's statement said:-

"Brights deny all that sort of supernatural stuff. Being an atheist says virtually nothing about your worldview. Being a bright tells much more about your worldview.

210karman wrote:
I think your point is solely based on the dictionary definition of the word atheist. So using the same logic please explain how "bright" equates to what Snowman's statement said:-

"Brights deny all that sort of supernatural stuff. Being an atheist says virtually nothing about your worldview. Being a bright tells much more about your worldview.

(Positive) Atheism is a view but it hardly deserves to be called a worldview due to its lack of a complex ideological/philosophical content. Naturalism does have such a complex content and thus deserves to be called a worldview.

210karman wrote:
On what basis do you imply that atheists may believe in in the existence of Bigfoot, Orcs, Miracles, supernatural Powers and in this sense they are different from "brights".

It follows from the simple fact that atheism means nothing more than not believing in god. Someone who believes in magic and miracles and who does not believe in god can call himself atheistic. Or why do you think he is not allowed to call him atheistic although he does not believe in god? However, he cannot call himself "bright", because the brights are a union of people with naturalistic world view which excludes everything supernatural (not only gods).

@Teuton
Well, you are right, that Bigfoot must not be supernatural. Yet, I think that the "brights" also say that they deny the faith without reason and they rely on evidence based scientific methods and therefore should not have faith in Bigfoot.

I hate the name so much, I will not consider endorsing it by attending any events that use it. Just like I wouldn't attend any event hosted by The Child Fucking Baby Bashers given that it was an unfortunate name selection by a group primarily interested in home baking skills, even though I love a cake or two.

I'll just have to catch the highlights online somewhere.

snowman wrote:

210karman wrote:
On what basis do you imply that atheists may believe in in the existence of Bigfoot, Orcs, Miracles, supernatural Powers and in this sense they are different from "brights".

It follows from the simple fact that atheism means nothing more than not believing in god. Someone who believes in magic and miracles and who does not believe in god can call himself atheistic. Or why do you think he is not allowed to call him atheistic although he does not believe in god? However, he cannot call himself "bright", because the brights are a union of people with naturalistic world view which excludes everything supernatural (not only gods).

@[color=#CC0000][b]Teuton[/b][/color]
Well, you are right, that Bigfoot must not be supernatural. Yet, I think that the "brights" also say that they deny the faith without reason and they rely on evidence based scientific methods and therefore should not have faith in Bigfoot.

According to the definition of atheist you and Teuton are correct. In reality I suggest the vast majority of atheists do in fact also deny the existence of other supernatural beings / events etc. If it was necessary to capture this extended "non-belief" in a single word I still feel "bright" was a very unfortunate choice. More to the point, condescending.

As an afterthought, I noticed Dawkins is listed on the "brights" website which I just looked up. He recently stated he wasn't an atheist in discussion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. According to your definition above he shouldn't be able to call himself a bright since he won't rule out the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God.

210karman wrote:
As an afterthought, I noticed Dawkins is listed on the "brights" website which I just looked up. He recently stated he wasn't an atheist in discussion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. According to your definition above he shouldn't be able to call himself a bright since he won't rule out the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God.

To be honest, I do not understand why you come to this conclusion. Whats the problem in not believing in *something* and, yet, stating that you cannot completely rule out the possibility of this *something*?

snowman wrote:

210karman wrote:
As an afterthought, I noticed Dawkins is listed on the "brights" website which I just looked up. He recently stated he wasn't an atheist in discussion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. According to your definition above he shouldn't be able to call himself a bright since he won't rule out the possibility of the existence of a supernatural God.

To be honest, I do not understand why you come to this conclusion. Whats the problem in not believing in *something* and, yet, stating that you cannot completely rule out the possibility of this *something*?

Because you said in your last post

because the brights are a union of people with naturalistic world view which excludes everything supernatural (not only gods).

snowman wrote:
Well, you are right, that Bigfoot must not be supernatural. Yet, I think that the "brights" also say that they deny the faith without reason and they rely on evidence based scientific methods and therefore should not have faith in Bigfoot.

Yes, having a science-informed and -oriented worldview is part of having a "bright" worldview.

I dont care what the convoluted explanation for the term is, anyone who calls themselves a 'Bright' is by the very definition of the word a cunt.

trubble76 wrote:I hate the name so much, I will not consider endorsing it by attending any events that use it. Just like I wouldn't attend any event hosted by The Child Fucking Baby Bashers given that it was an unfortunate name selection by a group primarily interested in home baking skills, even though I love a cake or two.

I'll just have to catch the highlights online somewhere.

AFAIK The Brights are not hosting the event or anything. They are one of at least 20 sponsors.

Sponsors

American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Alliance of America
Atheist Nexus
Camp Quest
Center for Inquiry
Foundation Beyond Belief
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Freethought Society
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
National Atheist Party
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance
Society for Humanistic Judaism
Stiefel Freethought Foundation
The Brights
The James Randi Educational Foundation
The Richard Dawkins Foundation
United COR
Washington Area Secular Humanists

I'm a card carrying member of two of those groups. The "Brights" are not one of them.

What's wrong with these people?
Change the fucking name!
Have they not figured out yet that no one will take them seriously as long as they hold onto it?

95Theses wrote:I dont care what the convoluted explanation for the term is, anyone who calls themselves a 'Bright' is by the very definition of the word a cunt.

Nah that's taking it way too far, it's just a very unfortunate name choice given the connotations.

On a side note it would be nice to live in a world where you could give your group a positive nickname like brights and not immediately get the piss ripped out of you by people jumping to conclusions and/or cynical twats but I'm a bit of a cynical twat myself and I know we have good reasons for being so, and since wishing never changed anything they might as well bite the bullet and change the name.

That is unless they attract a different subset of people to the group by sounding... positive and stuff, in which case fair enough I s'pose, but I'd still prefer they picked a different positive sounding name other than one that might be interpreted as meaning other people are a bit dim.

Godless Infidel wrote:I'm a card carrying member of two of those groups. The "Brights" are not one of them.

The Brights don't issue member cards anyway.

I'm with Hitchens all the way on the 'Bright' label. It's fucking embarassing to potentially be lumped into the same group as them.

Teuton wrote:

Godless Infidel wrote:I'm a card carrying member of two of those groups. The "Brights" are not one of them.

The Brights don't issue member cards anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
------BRIGHTS MEMBERSHIP------

Member:________________________________

Date:_____________ Expires:______________

Note: If you are a medical professional looking for ID
please stop laughing and get back to work. It means
something positive and quite clever. Really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to use it.

210karman wrote:
Because you said in your last post

because the brights are a union of people with naturalistic world view which excludes everything supernatural (not only gods).

Ah, ok. I do not mean "excluding" in the sense of being absolutely certain that anything supernatural couldnt possible exist. I mean it in the sense that there is not the slightest evidence and reason to believe in anything supernatural.

I'm planning on going, I'm not going to let the fact that the Brights are inviting me along with everybody else associated with atheism and their uncle influence my decision. It's not like it's called The Brights Rally.

Mister Agenda wrote:I'm planning on going, I'm not going to let the fact that the Brights are inviting me along with everybody else associated with atheism and their uncle influence my decision. It's not like it's called The Brights Rally.

I was moaning about the brights name but I think I would still go if I was there. Have a good time and let us know what it was like.

That video makes me wonder whether they unknowingly hired some theist dude to direct it. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

Booked a hotel within spitting distance.