Talk:Brights movement

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Agree completely. Fixed those redirects to point to Naturalism (philosophy). --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Yeah, Naturalism is definitely distinct from the Brights movement. --Humanist Geek (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturalistic worldview 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: '"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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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.

Comments on wording or design welcome.
Lumos3 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Userbox for Wikipedia Users who are members of the Brights movement 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Antitheism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop, Thief! 

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

message: Heard that The Brights love Spinoza, wondering why there's no mention here in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come no mention of [[Benedict Spinoza]]