Quote:
Originally Posted by cejuan  The point of the movement is not to help agnostics and atheists and humanists etc come to agreement on our beliefs...In fact the definition is intentionally vague because the movement doesn't want to limit our numbers because of the details of what we think supernatural means (or waste time debating the meaning). If I say my worldview is free of supernatural elements (and my definition of the word is somewhere in the realm of reasonal definitions) than I could be a bright. |
I beg to differ, the examples i posted previously from the website are very concrete about what supernatural means and have no vagueness about them. If your an atheist that practices feng shui or you plant your garden according to the zodiac etc., you do not have a naturalistic worldview and are not a bright. I would like to present another quote from the website that contradicts your notion of "vagueness":
"On the whole, the notion refers to an individual's belief system related to concepts such as the meaning and purpose of life, existence after death, the presence of deities, nature and origins, morality and human nature, rituals, and other major life stance considerations. You can find an extensive discussion and example definitions on the The Co-Directors' website."
Quote:
I like having the option to use the term Bright, but the movement doesn't require that I ever call myself a Bright. I like it because going around calling myself a word that is derived from a concept I find unlikely seems silly. It is often compared to the idea of calling myself an agsantaist because I can't prove santa doesn't exist. It gives too much credibility to the idea of santa and it makes it sound like I don't like him instead of like I think he's a myth. I also sometimes use it when I know that the person I'm talking to will interpret me saying "I'm an agnostic" as "I'm confused" and I won't get the chance to correct it. At least for now, they'll have to ask me what I mean. Someday, they'll supply their own erroneous definition such as "a bunch of atheists looking to update their image with a flowery new-age name" |
Actually, I think its a good idea that atheists wish to reinvent themselves primarily by what they believe in instead of by that which they do not believe. If agnostics wish to join in, thats fine too. But for to_hobbes to come on and say that that you can be a deist and be a bright is just plain deceptive. The only other thing that seems deceptive is the use of the term "naturalist". It seems like a group of environmentalists or an offshoot of the sierra club or audobon society until you dig deeper into the website.
I would suggest they use something else less vague and more definitive like "physical realist" or something else that would lead average internet user to know what this is truly about instead of leading them to believe that its some kind of environmental movement.