• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

I like the term “Bright.” I think it is interesting and proper and those arguments against it are unfounded and based on fear of what others (like believers) think. Cowards. The term “Bright” will stick. It should. It sounds good and I liked it since I had first seen it associated with James Randi. I didn’t know what it meant at first, until you sent me your e-Skeptic, but now that I know, my instincts of it were confirmed and the term fits Randi and others who I think are truly Brights. This term is distinguished and even curious for those who might not know what it means at first, but can only speculate until they find out. But one thing is for sure, they will know they aren’t Brights if they aren’t in the category of James Randi and yourself and others who know how to debunk their collective jargon with good science. Stick with the term, for I think it will stick. It is naturalist and free of metaphysical claims and jargon, but full of just plain and simple commonsense reality. Be well and be a Bright.

I think that “Bright” is quite neutral compared to some of the other options. As far as the argument that bright makes us sound like we think we are smarter than them, so what? I’m sorry, and I certainly don’t mean to suggest that atheists are necessarily smarter than theists, but the resentment that a person aims at others who challenge his sacred beliefs will not be mollified because the challenger calls himself a “humble” or “apologist.”

I loved the term when I first read about it. I felt a bit of joy, thinking that I could take that label for myself, my worldview, and share it with other individuals. “Hell yeah!” I thought.

I would like to weigh in with a tepidly positive vote. In fact I went ahead and signed up as a Bright. The point of the whole exercise is not to go around proclaiming that we are Brights and doing battle with evangelicals at every corner. My interpretation is that if we atheists, agnostics, skeptics, etc., want to join together as a more solid and cohesive voice, we must do so under one banner. I know that our ilk primarily keep their opinions to themselves and are a more solitary breed. Unfortunately, if we are to have any kind of say in what is going on in our communities and the world, then we really must come together as one informed voice and presence. If the best way to begin this process is to take on the name “Bright,” then so be it.

Anyone who has endorsed the meme is not likely to write to say “me too,” or “right on bro.” I know that the idea has stimulated a lot of lively discussion in humanist/atheist/free-thought fora and that there are a lot of people who are downright threatened by it. Your involvement and that of Randi, Dawkins, Dennett and others, in print and on the radio, have really helped to get the idea about Bright into the open. In addition, it has made people realize that nontheists are not content to be negatively defined (or defiled) by believers. Even negative feedback spreads the meme. I don’t know how successful the Bright constituency idea will be in the long run, but I think that the discussion it has stimulated both within free-thought community, but also in the main stream, has been a good thing.

Negative Reactions to “Bright”

The response to the “bright” meme proposal immediately put me in mind of what happened here in Canada with the yearly conference of social scientists known as The Learned Societies Conference. The conference was colloquially known as The Learneds, but the society has recently changed after a backlash in many host cities had the locals referring to the conference attendees as The Stupids.

Let me add my voice to the myriad of others who have expressed opposition to any attempt to promote “Bright” as a popular euphemism for “nontheist.” While I would be delighted to be publicly proclaimed as a Bright, there is not a snowflake’s chance on the sunny side of Mercury of the ignorant godworshippers (tautology) ever accepting a word commonly understood to mean brainy as a description