Talk:Brights movement

Naturalistic worldview

I'm redirecting Naturalistic worldview & Naturalistic world view to this article. I looked at Naturalism and it doesn't seem to describe the obvious meaning of Naturalistic worldview. Likewise Atheism seems unsuitable for the redirect as it's more specific. --Singkong2005 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article contain some discussion of naturalism and the points of similarity and difference? After all, the word is in the definition of bright (A bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic) but it seems different from the naturalism described in the the naturalism article. --Singkong2005 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

NO, No, No. I don't think that Naturalistic worldview should be redirected here. Because the brights movement is defined here as consisting of people who believe in a Naturalistic World View. By redirecting the other article to here, you are creating a circular definition. When I was reading the article, I immediatly wanted to click on "Naturalistic Worldview" to see what that was. Also a naturalistic worldview is generic, it discusses a specific type of world view, while "Brights movement" is a movement created for and by people who follow a naturalistic worldview. A worldview is not a movement and a movement is not a worldview. That would be like redirecting democracy to the United States- some people might think they were the same, but that would be an error. amyanda 05:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000

I agree. Big mistake with this redirection. I have a naturalistic worldview but do not want to be associated with this silly organization, this silly name. This is a big mistake. Not quite as bad as having 'religion' redirect to 'Christianity', but that's how it feels. Naturalistic worldview should describe what a naturalistic worldview IS. It might link to Brights, but for Brights to be the page? This is silly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.214.139 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Fixed those redirects to point to Naturalism (philosophy). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, Naturalism is definitely distinct from the Brights movement. --Humanist Geek (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence

This link - Religiosity and intelligence - is in the See Also section. I'd like to dispute its inclusion. The Brights' Net is at pains to point out that there is no denotation of superior intelligence in the term 'bright', even if some people see that as a connotation. Surely the question of the superior intelligence of the non-religious is not strictly relevant to a movement which identifies itself as neither "anti-religious" nor intellectually superior?? --ExiguusNemesis 14:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But it is an essential component of the criticism of the movement. I can see why it ought to stay. Gabrielthursday 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see a place in the article where it naturally fits - I'll add it.

Edit: Actually, it doesn't fit in as well as I thought. But I tend to agree with Gabriel, especially as Dawkins says the statistical link is a matter for research. Richard001 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo twisted?

On the official site and in the german version of this article the planet in the logo is on the left. I assume the logo in this article has a wrong orientation? Could someone fix that? 84.58.146.3 23:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the logo in various configurations - I don't think any one of them is more right than any other. But I don't know. Stevebritgimp 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

i think you are right, the logo is twisted. it needs to be rotated by 90° to the left to be accurate. i went through the main-pages of all brights movement country-pages that are listed in wikipedia (at the moment: Brights France, Brights Germany, Brights Italia, Brights Japan, Brights Korea, Brights Netherlands, Brights UK, Brights South Africa)

the pages from Germany, USA, United Kingdom use the brights logo, but its rotated 90° to the left. all the other country pages do not use the symbol. only the page referred to as ``brights online´´ uses it with the rays coming down, and the circular shape is at the top.

i am pretty sure that the blue rays are intended to go from left to right, because the bright-movement wants to clearly seperate itself from religion and rays coming down from something that could be the sun doesnt fit in. also, as explained above, the left-to-right-version is more widely used.

it would be nice if someone could do the research, or just change it. perhaps we should let the community vote, if research is not successful. perhaps we should let the brights vote EVEN IF the logo was intended to have the round shape at the top with rays coming down, if the majority would agree that changing the image by rotation would improve it... would somebody need to reprint t-shirts and flyers then?

if this comment should be removed because the problem has been solved in a satisfying way, then please also look at the talk pages of the image file, i will leave a copy of this message there.

Kurtilein 02:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This brights-net page allows you to download the brights visual identity guidelines and high definition images. The image currently in the article is an icon, not the logo (which includes the text "the brights"). According to the visual identity guidelines, the preferred orientation of icon or logo is always with the rays coming downwards, although sideways rays (but not upwards) are permissable when it complements a design. I think this wikipedia article should show the preferred logo, not the icon, but I don't have the skills/software to snip this out of the psd file they provide on the brights site.

Slygly 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion or explanation anywhere about what that logo represents? It's a bit odd... I mean, it seems unnatural. But after thinking a bit, the impression I get from it is that there is a very important reason that it is the ground being illuminated rather than the sky. It seems to be suggesting that hope is not to be found high above, but by understanding what is beneath our very feet. Esn (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External Links

WP:EL removed all non-offical links -- but i'd highly suggest the multilingual links get placed into the appropriate encyclopedia. I've also removed some links that are probably usefull, but need to be incorporated into the article per WP:EL and not just listed as a centralized bookmark source. Add a link page to the official site, or take it to DMOZ.. (I've also created the article for Out Campaign)

Essays on the Brights movement and coinage

• Who Are The Brights? – by the co-founders of the Brights' Net
• The future looks bright– Richard Dawkins in The Guardian (UK), 21 June 2003
• The Bright Stuff – Daniel Dennett in the New York Times, 12 July 12 2003
• A brights idea – Sharon Tubbs in the St Petersburg Times, 20 July 2003
• The future is oh-so non-adjectivally bright – Ruth Wajnryb in the Sydney Morning Herald, 31 January 31 2004
• A Bright New World – Erik Strand in Psychology Today, Jan/Feb 2004
• Not Too "Bright" – a critical review of the term 'bright' by Chris Mooney for CSICOP

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanCarroll (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of these links, which are relevant and useful. By all means incorporate them more fully into the text, but please don't delete them entirely. Timb66 (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Irreligion

Hi, I dont like that category Irreligion. When I look at its talk:Irreligion I see that the category itself is heavily disputed. And I find the term offending. (I am not a native speaker, so I cannot tell if the term should have its place in an encyclopedia...) Can the irreligion template be removed from the article? (I dont dare removing it myself, because there have already been reverted removals by IPs.) --Matgoth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw that the Brights newsletter actively asked someone familiar with wikipedia to remove the irreligion box. I've been on wikipedia for a couple of years now, and I've gone ahead and removed the irreligion template, while leaving the other categories (cats) intact. Some of the previous deletions had also deleted the other cats, which are unobjectionable, as far as I can tell. Edhubbard (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From the article (which itself is disputed) it says it is possible to be a theist and be irreligious - it would generally not be possible to be a theist and a bright. It also lists hostility to religion as an aspect of irreligion, which is not an aspect of bright. Stevebritgimp (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The original request as it appeared in the Brights newsletter, for the record:

======================
NEED: WIKI EDITOR FOR A ONE-TIME SHOT

The Brights' Net needs a volunteer who is competent with Wikipedia 
to edit a portion of The Brights' Net page there, removing  material
that has been added to an otherwise fairly OK description.

At the bottom of the page is a table of information that lists the
Brights movement categorically under "irreligion," a term  immensely
unsuitable as an overall characterization of this movement. It is
clear that this entire set of inserted information has no point being
on the Wikipedia page. It distorts the endeavor, and it undermines
proper understanding of the movement.

If you are competent with Wiki, please delete the table at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.19.178 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a member myself, but I don't think it really matters what the Brights actually say - what can be demonstrated. It isn't really about whether the Brights think it's distorting or not - is it really distorting - as per our talk above I agree that it is and has already been removed. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact to elaborate on what I've just said - Irreligion has been removed. It's interesting the newsletter has asked for the whole table to be removed, which I cannot agree with. Only certain ones of the remaining categories would be in any way contentious, and these are broad inclusive categories, not a specific description of what bright is. Stevebritgimp (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain where is this table that is being referred to here?! Thanks --The.Filsouf (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's box that goes at the bottom of the page, created wtih the wikicode {{irreligion}}. It looks like this:

The brights movement should not really be classified as an example of irreligion, and so they asked qualified editors to remove the box from the page. It's been gone now for several days, but a couple of the previous attempts (IP addresses) also removed valid cats from the page. I have reinstated the cats, while making sure that the template is removed. Edhubbard (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Great, well done --The.Filsouf (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying since day 2 to get the name of that template changed. I think I have finally convinced others the word has more negative connotations than neutral ones. If anyone has ideas on a better title for the template that Brights would not object to, please join the discussion on the talk page for the template --JimWae (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

'"Whether there is a statistical tendency for brights [noun] to be bright [adjective] is a matter for research."'

"The movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter") than the religious."

This goes without saying (or research)... It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise seemingly intelligent people have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion when it comes to questions of teleology and ontology.

"For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled "Not Too 'Bright'" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted."

The term, which I'm sure was chosen deliberately, points out to those who think supernaturally, after all this time - I'm speaking of the whole history of human experience as documented in the history of philosophy - can still engage in communally-reinforced self-deception.

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree a lot of this should be pretty obvious - but this is wikipedia, and it has a Neutral Point of View, which means it is reporting what is said on certain subjects by all parties neutrally and doesn't take sides, even if we as users will be motivated to be here because we are on one side or the other. Stevebritgimp (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox for Wikipedia Users who are members of the Brights movement

I have created a userbox which can be added to the User page of Wikipedians who are members of / or identify with the Brights movment.

40px	This User is a member of the Brights movement

To add this Userbox to your User page and at the same time have your user name included in the category Category:Wikipedians in the Brights movement , simply put the following text into your own User page.

{{User:Lumos3/Brights}}

Comments on wording or design welcome. Lumos3 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems we are not allowed to have a category for users in the Bright movement because its OK to identify with a religion but not OK to identify with a philosophy, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:Bright_Wikipedians. There seems a fundamental flaw in this thinking. This discussion shows no strong concencus and it seems to me an arbitrary one. How can it be challenged? Lumos3 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like blatant discrimination to me, and the arguments were not strong on any level. If it is matter of collaboration, there is a dozen articles that are connected to Brights movement, and perhaps we can show this by starting a Wiki portal and 'WikiProject' to make a list of related articles, and then create the category again? --The.Filsouf (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

have the progenitors

of this view/institution ever entertained wittgentstein's conception of the mystical in tractatus logico-philosophicus? anyone concerned with these matters and/or who has read the tractatus might want to consider it. wittgenstein's approach is a careful one. anyone? BingoBob 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Take it up with them; I'm sure they be interested in your ideas. This page is for discussing improvements to this encyclopedia article, not general discussion of the topic. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, I kinda forget that sometimes. only thing is-- mystical looks like a pretty solid article at a glance. and i read an essay by this guy nick Bostrom (assoc w/ brights). he doesn't speak about religion in the article, but if you'r defining a movement you don't wann hang too much of it on a phrase like "not mystical". ok- nevermind. wittgentstein's in the logical positivism article. that works.

just- at the end of the day the group is it's agenda. the agenda is a bunch of assertions (worldview, sure), and if we talk about the content of something somewhere- sorry if I can't always connect the dots- it relates to content of wikipedia.

"have those describing the progenitors..." haha BingoBob 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Stats

So, I see that the article says that there are brights in 183 nations. But, the brights website states (on the 'The Action' page) that there are brights in 178 nations. I know that it may not seem like a big deal, but the article has not citation for the 183 statistic. I'm guessing that 178 with a citation would be more appropriate. I have no idea how to edit stuff or add citations or I would do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.53.143 (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been sourced and fixed since 2018, although it is just from their website. Stevebritgimp (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Antitheism

Someone added the category Antitheism to the article. I have removed it, basically in line with the discussion under Irreligion above. I accept that there are different definitions of antitheism (so if anyone disagrees with me go ahead and discuss it here), but my take on it, certainly under current meanings, it that antitheism is an active opposition to religion, and the opinion that religion is harmful. In general those are not the positions of the Brights movement. The whole point of the Brights movement is to make positive statements about a supernatural-free worldview, rather than making negative statements about other worldviews. Also the word antitheist is absent from the article at this point. From a civic point of view the organisation is secularist. Including antitheism here would mischaracterise at least the intentions of the organisation. As I said before, if they were actually being antitheist in their actions then that assessment would need to be revised, regardless of the founding intentions. Stevebritgimp (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop, Thief!

Franklin Jones (Adidam founder) spoke heavily of experiencing "the bright" as his religious awakening (early 70s), and the religion/cult has made much of this terminology ever since. Geisert may be using the term a bit differently, but it seems a bit much to say he "coined" it. 209.172.23.27 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Claim of OR

I'm pretty sure that the text removed by Apollo The Logician (here and here) under the pretext of original research just needs a source, rather than being removed from the article (that text has been restored, in addition to this). Also, the use of Youtube sources by Apollo The Logician, no matter how reliable, are bare links (URLs) and should be written correctly as sources if they are to be used. Coldcreation (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

"believe that matter is the fundamental substance of nature and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions. This belief is sometimes referred to as materialism." This should be removed. Materialism is not the same thing as naturalism. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Materialism and naturalism are both shared by Brights ideology. Correct me if I'm wrong. Coldcreation (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not neccesarily. Bright ideology is naturalism. You can be a naturalist and deny materialism. Anyway even if that was true the article still conflates the two as the same thing. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How come no mention of Benedict Spinoza

Heard that The Brights love Spinoza, wondering why there's no mention here in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC) FYI see this video at 13:14 seconds.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)