Re: [atheists-27] Atheist or Bright?

From: Norm
Sent on: Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:30 AM
Nah! Two points. One is only an atheist depending on the god they don't believe. With all other gods, they are agnostic. One can not disbelief in a belief if they don't know anything about it. Two, just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean that have a disbelief in other unnatural occurrences. In other words, all Brights are atheists, but not all atheists are Brights.
If you have trouble with the word "bright". Don't. The word "gay" is used in a similar manner. Both have more than one meaning. Brights don't mean to imply that they are brighter than other people. Just like "gay" doesn't mean to be gayer (happier) than other people.
If you think of bright in the sense of illumination, you will better understand how Brights sees themselves.

Norm


-----Original Message-----
From: Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]>
To: atheists-27 <[address removed]>
Sent: Wed, Aug 7,[masked]:29 pm
Subject: Re: [atheists-27] Atheist or Bright?

Metaphysical naturalist, or philosophical naturalist, is a "wider arena" term for someone "whose worldview is free of supernatural/mystical".

On Aug 7, 2013, at 7:25 PM, Robert W Ahrens <[address removed]> wrote:

Even though they try to cover the possibility that one could be an atheist AND something else, they are kind of limiting that alternative.

I would argue that describing myself as an atheist is only one part of who I am, and only describes my feelings about religion.  I have other ways of thinking that describe ethics, morals and political beliefs.  Their stance on the term "atheist" seems to be trying to paint me with a single color brush in spite of their attempted disclaimer.

My counter argument is that yes, I AM an atheist, and in spite of the limited field in which it describes me, that is, for what should be obvious social reasons, an important description in today's political climate!  They seem to be trying to distance themselves from this label so as to avoid the negative connotations of it to religious people.  That seems a pointless effort, given the current "you're either with us or agin us" attitude of the right wing in this country.  To fight the traditional negativity of this label, we should embrace it and co-opt it for our own purposes, removing the negativity associated with it in the larger society.


On Aug 7, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

I love the atheist community because atheist is the term of choice that attracts the largest and most vibrant part of the secular community that wants to connect with other secularists.  I have never been fond of the the fact that the term intrinsically is a negation of something rather than an affirmation.  The following is from the recent Brights Bulletin.  Obviously they have an ax to grind on this issue.
- Don
 
Atheist or Bright? (Perhaps Both?)
Landscape for Atheists
(Individual without god-belief) -- The topography of atheism is carved by religion. And, culturally, religion has language of its own. Within that religion realm, everyone will use its terminology and apply many of its concepts. Even when you are setting yourself apart from religion, or trying to, you still are standing on religion's terrain. Use the term, atheist, and you have adopted the terminology and frame (and probably your society's cultural preoccupation).
Landscape for Brights
(Individual' whose worldview free of supernatural/mystical) -- Start off from this different point, and you can adopt a much wider arena for consideration. The broader terrain encompasses many factors, and need not focus or dwell on religion at all.
Individuals are surrounded by abundant cultural contentions. A naturalistic stance quite often results from contemplation and analysis of empirical concerns regarding the myriad of avaialble supernatural/mystical possibilities. But however such an outlook has come about in any individual, the result is a person whose way of looking at the world isn't inclusive of any of them.
It is quite possible an individual matches both labels: an atheist and a bright (or an agnostic and a bright). For some people, though, one label will fit, but not the other. There are definitely atheists who would not be brights. And besides brights who do not fit the atheist label (it's not their conclusion about deities), some reject being characterized by other persons unable to see beyond the predominant terrain carved by religion.
If this discussion hasn’t helped then give the similar but more extensive discussion on the website a try.




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]





--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Robert W Ahrens ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Robert W Ahrens, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mathew Goldstein ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Mathew Goldstein, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy