"Brights" is out; "The Enlightened" is in?

[Alien]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

[Aruntraveller]

Well I'm quite happy to stick with atheist, thank you.

The Enlightened sounds like some sect portrayed in Sci-fi somewhere.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

If those on the dawkins.net want to engage in this kind of thing, well fine, but I don't really see the point.

Atheist works fine for me - it is neutral and simply describes me - someone who does not believe in god or gods.

I think creating terms such as 'brights' or 'the enlightened' which are clearly positive terms developed by those to whom they apply isn't really the right approach because by inference those who aren't 'brights' or 'the enlightened' are to an extent being disparaged. Now that is typically the territory of the religious - to describe themselves in glowing terms, and by inference (or directly) disparage those who do not believe. In my opinion atheists shouldn't engage in the same, rather childish, game.

[Alien]

Well I'm quite happy to stick with atheist, thank you.

The Enlightened sounds like some sect portrayed in Sci-fi somewhere.

Agreed. It also sounds a bit like the Gnostics of the 2nd century AD onwards, though they were theists.

[Alien]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

If those on the dawkins.net want to engage in this kind of thing, well fine, but I don't really see the point.

Atheist works fine for me - it is neutral and simply describes me - someone who does not believe in god or gods.

I think creating terms such as 'brights' or 'the enlightened' which are clearly positive terms developed by those to whom they apply isn't really the right approach because by inference those who aren't 'brights' or 'the enlightened' are to an extent being disparaged. Now that is typically the territory of the religious - to describe themselves in glowing terms, and by inference (or directly) disparage those who do not believe. In my opinion atheists shouldn't engage in the same, rather childish, game.

Agreed. Well put, Prof.

[floo]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

What is the problem with the term 'atheist'?

[Alien]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

What is the problem with the term 'atheist'?

The bit in red, Floo.

Actually, it was a bit muddled (or maybe I was). I'm not sure whether they wanted to do away with the term "atheist" or "non-believer". You can flick through the discussions there, if you want, to see how the discussion went.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

What is the problem with the term 'atheist'?

Nothing

[ippy]

                                                                 




                                                                          Dawkinesque




ippy

[Nearly Sane]

What a sad collection of wankfestery that competition must have been!

[Nearly Sane]

To bring a Glaswegian tone to it, I would have suggested the Gallus (and added smug muppets after it)

[2Corrie]

Not a very original title is it? And given how light is a theme running through the Christian scriptures, a rather ironic one too!

[jeremyp]

“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression?”

The term “atheist” is essentially a negative term. I  don't see what the problem is. This is like the people who do not collect collect stamps bemoaning the fact that there is no “positive” term for non-stamp collectors.

“Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”

I don't understand why they think the term “enlightened” doesn't have the same problem. There's nothing about that term which is inherently atheistic. In fact, there is quite a strong religious connotation to it viz zen buddhism.

[Rhiannon]

Given that atheism is the absence of belief, giving atheists a positive name contradicts that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not a very original title is it? And given how light is a theme running through the Christian scriptures, a rather ironic one too!

I think you will find light as a key theme running through religion and other cultures way earlier than christianity ... for, well, obvious reasons.

[Enki]

Good news! There has been a competition over at richarddawkins.net about finding a better word to describe atheists than "atheists". The winner proposed "The Enlightened".

Last week we published a question from Ian Ferguson of Montreal that asked:
“We often describe atheists as ‘non-believers,’ which is accurate but negative. Is there a positive expression? Evidence Believers lacks poetry -- Free Thinkers might work but does not directly address non-theistic thinking.”
Our winner is Bill. A copy of Richard Dawkins’ “An Appetite for Wonder” is headed your way.
Runners-up:   Alan4discussion & phil rimmer

See https://richarddawkins.net/2015/10/question-of-the-week-october-7th-2015/. Despite taking part in the discussion, I'm not sure how serious they are. So, dear atheists, you are not "Brights" now, but rather "The Enlightened" according to them.

What do our resident atheists think?

Pass the sick bag?

If those on the dawkins.net want to engage in this kind of thing, well fine, but I don't really see the point.

Atheist works fine for me - it is neutral and simply describes me - someone who does not believe in god or gods.

I think creating terms such as 'brights' or 'the enlightened' which are clearly positive terms developed by those to whom they apply isn't really the right approach because by inference those who aren't 'brights' or 'the enlightened' are to an extent being disparaged. Now that is typically the territory of the religious - to describe themselves in glowing terms, and by inference (or directly) disparage those who do not believe. In my opinion atheists shouldn't engage in the same, rather childish, game.

Wholeheartedly agree, Prof.

[ippy]

Given that atheism is the absence of belief, giving atheists a positive name contradicts that?

Good point.

ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Given that atheism is the absence of belief, giving atheists a positive name contradicts that?

I've argued earlier that atheism should be considered neutral.

However I don't agree that something that is an 'absence' or 'lack' of should never be seen as positive. It depends on what the thing that is lacked is considered to be. If that thing is seen universally as being of itself negative (e.g. dishonesty, greed, callousness) then surely not having those features would be seen as positive. The counter is true where the thing lacked is positive (e.g. generosity, altruism, compassion etc) the a lack of would be seen as negative.

[Rhiannon]

Given that atheism is the absence of belief, giving atheists a positive name contradicts that?

I've argued earlier that atheism should be considered neutral.

However I don't agree that something that is an 'absence' or 'lack' of should never be seen as positive. It depends on what the thing that is lacked is considered to be. If that thing is seen universally as being of itself negative (e.g. dishonesty, greed, callousness) then surely not having those features would be seen as positive. The counter is true where the thing lacked is positive (e.g. generosity, altruism, compassion etc) the a lack of would be seen as negative.

I think we (or the people on Dawkin's website perhaps) are muddling what we mean by negative. An absence of something isn't always bad, just as the presence of something isn't always good - the obvious example being a medical exam where a positive result means the presence of a particular disease. So I don't see why anyone would feel the need to put a 'positive' spin on something that is negative because of absence rather than effect; it strikes me as not understanding the meaning of 'negative' correctly.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Atheists, ( is it okay to capitalise atheist )

But there were other candidates, Accuracy jihadists/ Modern Empirical Natural Philosophers ( where's Vlad when you need him ) undeluded ( morning Blue and Leonard ).

And one of my favourites, Dawkinsists.

Gonnagle.

[BashfulAnthony]

"Pretentious" best describes it.

[ippy]

"Pretentious" best describes it.

"Pretentious", has to be better than gullible.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

"Pretentious" best describes it.

"Pretentious", has to be better than gullible.

ippy

So you would rather be described as a pretentious atheist, than a gullible one?  Have them both!   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Bashers,

Arrogant atheist.

http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/

T shirt company.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

"Pretentious" best describes it.

"Pretentious", has to be better than gullible.

ippy

That your best shot?

ippy