6 3

Just wondering how many if any of the atheists or agnostics on this site are familiar with or perhaps belong to "The Brights"? I am a member. For those who have not heard of them, they are a group which members " have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural or mystical elements.". It is an international group with members all around the world. Members include atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Unitarians, Buddhists, and many others. They have a web site which is extensive and discusses many things. [] If you bother to go to it, do not just read the first page, go though all of it. It is worth your time and will explain many things. This is not a new organization, was founded in 2002.

Most Brights believe that public policies should be based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of the scientific method). Brights are likely to oppose the practice of basing public policies on supernatural doctrines. Brights may therefore be described as secularists.

Many, but not all, brights also identify as atheist, antitheist, humanist (specifically secular humanist), freethinker, irreligionist, naturalist, materialist or physicalist, agnostic, skeptic, or even naturalistic pantheist. Even so, the "movement is not associated with any defined beliefs". The website Brights' Net says its goal is to include the umbrella term bright in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason".

So I am wondering if there is enough people on this site interested in the concepts of The Brights to start up a group on this site to discuss their concepts, including support of their ideas as well as critiques of them?

As a postscript; 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 non-naturalists, such as philosophical skeptics or idealists, believers in the paranormal, philosophical theists, or the religious. 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's 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 journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights'".

In response to this, Daniel Dennett has stated:

There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.

creative51 8 Nov 15

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I learned of the Brights years ago, but like many I'm not crazy of the terms Brights and Supers, to differentiate between non-believers and believers in the supernatural. Otherwise, I'm sure I'd fit right in.

Maybe the name should have an explanation like "one who reflects a naturalistic worldview" or something like that. Not sure what it is that might make me want to join. I don't disagree with any of it - just haven't had the yearning to join.

Anybody care to change my mind?

The Brights are an option. You can join, you can not join, you go to their site and read the large amount of material on it. You do not have to join to read their material, which might be quite interesting to you. Going to their site and reading does not obligate you to join. Also I joined in 2004 and although they ask if you can donate, I have never donated money, yet I still get their news letters.


Want to check it out, but didn't seem to load

google The Brights. Should come up on the list.

@creative51 will do,thanks


Will look into it. I had heard that the term Brights had fallen into disuse or had a negative reputation, but I hadn't researched it. Thanks.


This is basically what I have proposed with Zen Taoism. The “bright” argument doesn’t sound very bright on the part of those objecting. Atheists get pissy about everything and that’s part of why people don’t want them at a party. I would join this group but we already have The Path Of A Taoist and that’s not heavily visited.

For your curiosity you may wish to visit their website and find out more about them.

@creative51 I registered.


What this "brite" is saying is that: it is applying old principles to a different, word.

Lucifer, having meanings etymology speaking: "...literally "light-bringing," from lux (genitive lucis) "light" (from PIE root leuk- "light, brightness" ) + ferre "to carry, bear," from PIE root bher- ..."

This "light = (equal) knowledge" concept is nothing new and still used by groups such as Masonic lodge secret religion racist devil worshipper governmental terrorist for then considering themselves as "enlightened ones".

Word Level 8 Nov 15, 2021

I have vaguely heard of them but I never visited their site.

Visit it and read. You may find it interesting.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:634085
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.