(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

Something I should have made clear in yesterday's posting about brights, and which a couple of commenters have reminded me about, is that the bright movement isn't representative of atheists et al. Many have reacted negatively. The Skeptic Society's email newsletter solicited responses from readers which were overwhelmingly against the term - a copy of their report is archived here. Chris Mooney of CSICOP described how the movement backfired.

OTOH, it is a movement: The Bright's Net, a non-profit organisation, claims a potential twenty-nine million members, although they're not forthcoming about the actual number of brights who've registered with them. (They claim over 3800 responded to a recent poll of members.) Nor has the movement been marginalised by the non-religious community: the Web site BrightRights.org describes itself as "a project of the American Humanist Society".

Comments

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

Thank heavens most skeptics are sensible enough to realise that the implied value-judgement is not at all helpful to their cause. Frankly, though, suggesting that the coiners of the term didn't intend such a judgement is an insult to the intelligence in itself.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Imaginary conversation, penned by Dawkins:

"So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

"What would you suggest?"