"The Brights" http://the-brights.net/

[galtgulch]

I imagine the 41,000 members worldwide might have little in common beyond the fact that they do not believe in the supernatural or the mystical.

>>>"The movement's three major aims are:

1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.

2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.

3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals."<<<

Objectivism gets a mention with a lower case O!

>>>"This movement per se concentrates on attracting the diverse constituents who have a naturalistic worldview and steering actions in a general direction to address grave concerns about the social and civic relegation of their worldview. This movement is not an atheist movement, nor a humanist, freethinker, skeptical, rationalist, objectivist, igtheist, materialist, or secular humanist movement, nor any other manifestation of extant organizations and philosophies."<<<

They supposedly just want to be recognized as a respectable constituency, from the others who do believe in the supernatural and mystical.

>>>"We intend to work to create a social awareness that the constituency and the naturalistic worldview need to be accepted for what they are, and not be defined as a negation of a religious point of view. The Brights, by defining themselves positively and without comparison, stand defiant against the ways by which society has long defined them. Some labels, by their very use, reinforce the marginalization of Brights in society and lower the cultural authority of what is actually a strikingly wholesome worldview.

We laud those who can stand against terminology that denigrates or lowers the status of a person who holds a naturalistic worldview. A great many Brights do not wish to be identified as unbelievers, or nonbelievers, when they firmly believe in many things. They do not relish being characterized by adjectives that merely reinforce exceedingly narrow comparison to religious beliefs of others -- words that, in many cases, carry a stigma (e.g., godless, faithless). Brights must help society move beyond referring to persons who have a naturalistic worldview only by negative reference to other worldviews, or by belittling comparisons."<<<

Since we all qualify I thought I would post this for what it is worth.

I posted this under Metaphysics since that appears to be the relevant category where they express a belief, "naturalistic worldview."

[BaalChatzaf]

While I thoroughly laud the stated intention of The Brights Network, I find their agitprop just a tad tedious. Every Brights newsletter seems to say we are the Brights and we are smarter than the Unwashed believers (which is by and large true). They kind of remind me of the Mensa types who sit around and discuss how smart they are (which is why I never joined Mensa, even though I have the smarts for it).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Christopher Hitchens calls this pretension "cringe making" and I agree. South Park parodied Dawkins and his friends mercilessly, and right on.

[Chris Grieb]

Thank GOD for South Park!

[kiaer.ts]

Thank GOD for South Park!

I could sing a hymn to that:

Sanctum Piter oteum, Deus ore uneum.

Hippitus hoppitus reus homine.

In suspiratoreum, lepus in re sanctum.

Hippitus hoppitus Deus Domine.