How do you become a "Bright"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPolo

Guest
I’ve heard the term “bright” used as a self-title by athiests. In order to become a “bright” what must one do? Can an agnostic be a bright? Can a Christian be a bright?

All brights welcome to answer.
:o
 
Well, if you google using the terms atheism bright, a whole bunch of links come up.

Here’s one:

mwillett.org/atheism/brights.htm

It’s a term used for atheists, which is like ‘gay’ used for homosexuals.

It emphasizes the bright (meaning positive or hopeful) aspects of not believing in superstitious folklore.

I am not too keen on it as a descriptive term, because describing people as ‘bright’ usually suggests that they are intelligent, or bright, whereas other people aren’t.

I suspect that it isn’t going to catch on.
 
I now a lot of prostitutes that are atheists and they are hardly “bright”.
Does deists qualify as “brights” or just atheists.
Communists, who are atheists and the most dogmatic and murderoisly idiotic people on earth are brights?
Please Richard, tell us.
 
It’s atheists that are trying to set themselves apart and above everyone else by implying that “they’re smart, everyone else who isn’t them is dumb.” It’s just a form of up and above morality, so they don’t really need to explain something as much as just point at their ‘title’ and say, see?
 
inthecloud said:
I now a lot of prostitutes that are atheists and they are hardly “bright”.
Does deists qualify as “brights” or just atheists.
Communists, who are atheists and the most dogmatic and murderoisly idiotic people on earth are brights?
Please Richard, tell us.
Click to expand...
…how do you “now” (know) a lot of prostitutes…?
 
1234 said:
It’s a term used for atheists, which is like ‘gay’ used for homosexuals.

It emphasizes the bright (meaning positive or hopeful) aspects of not believing in superstitious folklore.
Click to expand...
How does it work? Why does the athiest see himself as positive or hopeful as opposed to non-athiests? What is wrong with the term athiest?

Is it not going to catch on because “bright” is a bad moniker?
 
inthecloud said:
I now a lot of prostitutes that are atheists and they are hardly “bright”.
Does deists qualify as “brights” or just atheists.
Communists, who are atheists and the most dogmatic and murderoisly idiotic people on earth are brights?
Please Richard, tell us.
Click to expand...
Maybe you need to hang out with a better class of prostitutes.
 
…how do you “now” (know) a lot of prostitutes…?
Click to expand...
I used to work with Law Enforcement. 😃

But I think that is Richard Dawkins latest divisive bad idea. And them he blames atheism bad PR on Theists propaganda only.

I do agree with Sam Harris. Religious sceptics (atheists, deists, Spinozian pantheists, agnostics) do not need to label themselves anything.
You are not a antibuddist or antichristian or antigod. You just do not believe in things you cannot falsify, period.
 
inthecloud said:
I used to work with Law Enforcement. 😃

But I think that is Richard Dawkins latest divisive bad idea. And them he blames atheism bad PR on Theists propaganda only.

I do agree with Sam Harris. Religious sceptics (atheists, deists, Spinozian pantheists, agnostics) do not need to label themselves anything.
You are not a antibuddist or antichristian or antigod. You just do not believe in things you cannot falsify, period.
Click to expand...
Forget “bright”.

It’s dim.
 
1234 said:
Forget “bright”.

It’s dim.
Click to expand...
*AC-tually, a lot of the unwashed non-organized believers are fellow-traveler Buddhists.
  • I have a step-great-niece who is very bright–the ‘real’ kind. When she was 2-3, she discovered this word and pronounced it,
“AC-tually”

It caught on and the entire family uses it.
 
I correct, R Dorkins was not the first that coined the term and is was not meant to be = to atheism. Sadly he has been pushing in that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top