The Brights Movement is a movement to give an umbrella label to all people with a naturalistic worldview, one free of supernatural or mystical beliefs.

"Bright" is a new noun, rather than an adjective, that has been created for the group. It's proper to think of all worldviews that lack supernatural or mystical beliefs as sub-divisions of Brights.

This is exactly what I've been hoping for for ages.

The movement's center is at www.the-brights.net

There's a catch, though: If you are joining because you were told that you should or must, then you CAN NOT BE A BRIGHT. It's a matter of your own will and thought, not the beliefs of your family or your friends.

I don't like this idea.

Why not? It's not much different than the movement to change "homosexual" to "gay", or to label the people of the green party "Greens".

It seems like a response to something, like they are doing it because Christians did something like it. They are yelling "hey I'm a naturalist" and all though that in itself isn't bad, its just starting a argument that doesn't need to happen.

They are screaming their opinions when everyone should just shut up.

Wow, what a great cause.

Excuse me if I'm missing something here, but can you explain to me exactly what is so important about creating a new label to assign to a particular set of beliefs?

Quote from Ash

The movement isn't just about labeling. It's also a civil rights movement for the non-mystical. It's about removing the negative connatations of words like "atheist" or "humanist", and even "freethinker".

By doing what? Getting rid of all those labels and placing them under the umbrella term of "brights". Couldn't people just as easily attach the same negative connotation to that label as well?

I mean, I can kind of see what they're getting at. The label implies a sort of union among those who share such opinions. But the whole thing sounds uncomfortably close to being another political correctness bandwagon.

Oh, and here are a few famous Brights:

Penn and Teller
Richard Dawkins
Michael Shermer

What's your point? Are those people supposed to lend extra validity to the cause or something? They have the same opinions regardless of whether or not you label them as brights.

This is retarded.

Quote from Ash

Why not? It's not much different than the movement to change "homosexual" to "gay", or to label the people of the green party "Greens".

why would you want to be labeled. I personally hate labels, just be whatever you want without constricting "labels". You know where else "labels" were used. heres a clue, WWII. Thats right, hitler labed the jew and had then all mark then when the time came he pratically exterminated them in a holocaust. Just live your life without labels man, they are pointless and restricting.

Quote from Cory

why would you want to be labeled. I personally hate labels, just be whatever you want without constricting "labels". You know where else "labels" were used. heres a clue, WWII. Thats right, hitler labed the jew and had then all mark then when the time came he pratically exterminated them in a holocaust. Just live your life without labels man, they are pointless and restricting.

Wow, nice argument.

Hey, you know who else wore clothes? Hitler. Yeah, so when you wear clothes, you are just like Hitler.

Quote from The Pirate

By doing what? Getting rid of all those labels and placing them under the umbrella term of "brights". Couldn't people just as easily attach the same negative connotation to that label as well?

I mean, I can kind of see what they're getting at. The label implies a sort of union among those who share such opinions. But the whole thing sounds uncomfortably close to being another political correctness bandwagon.

The movement isn't just about relabeling. Were that the case, then yes, the connotation would just be reassigned. It is just a name to organize under.

What's your point? Are those people supposed to lend extra validity to the cause or something? They have the same opinions regardless of whether or not you label them as brights.

No, I jsut wanted to list them, I didn't think about listing them in the first post, so I just added them to my last one.

Quote from The Pirate

By doing what? Getting rid of all those labels and placing them under the umbrella term of "brights". Couldn't people just as easily attach the same negative connotation to that label as well?

I mean, I can kind of see what they're getting at. The label implies a sort of union among those who share such opinions. But the whole thing sounds uncomfortably close to being another political correctness bandwagon.

NOE! Just look at the name! "BRIGHTS", how could anyone not like that? It reminds them of a bright day or something.

I know politics can be very cruel for judging people on religion. In fact, even Christians lost elections because people thought they would be a puppet leader for the pope. Seriously, being an atheist is definitely better then being a "Bright". In fact, a bright as a description on the ballot would confuse the shit out of me since the naturalist literature movement was known for it's pessimism. It just doesn't make sense.

Quote from Ash

This is exactly what I've been hoping for for ages.

What, that your beliefs get an umbrella term to label yourself under?

I don't see any fault in your beliefs or anything but if you want to believe in something, I don't see why you have to look for a group to classify yourself under for it.

People, its not about changing a name. ''Bright'' is just a name to organize under. The goal is to fight against discrimination. Noone is having their label changed. I'm still an atheist, but I am also a Bright.

Quote from Ash

People, its not about changing a name. ''Bright'' is just a name to organize under.

Because unity requires a catchy name to rally under?

Quote from The official "Vision" from the site

This egalitarian vision is not the reality today. Moving toward it requires that individuals who do hold a naturalistic worldview make manifest their existence within society. The idea of materializing as Brights at the Internet hub of The Brights’ Net is to acquire visibility, fortify one another in what is a worthwhile outlook on the world, and grow a constituency that can join forces broadly to work on broad aims of social and civic action.

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. As I said, it sounds like a pointless bandwagon that tries to make itself out to be a revolutionary movement with all kinds of flowery language ("manifesting their existance" and "fortifying one another" as "brights") and a romanticized and idealistic image.

I agree with the principle behind this "movement", but the way they are going about it is rather silly.

It seems like this should be in the debate section.