I'm here now. Use this to tell everyone you are here!

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I was posting in Topix evolution board today, and I stumbled across this site:

http://www.the-brights.net/

I was so taken by their philosophy, that I was inspired to change my login here.

I thought just saying "Bob, a bright" was a bit too much, so I compromised.

I'm still a bit worried it will come across as "he thinks he's smart, but he's really a smart-@$$"

So, I modified my signature with a link.

But, based on their home-page statement, I've been a bright for many, many years - I just didn't know it.

I suspect many of you here are brights, too.  They are not a bunch of atheists at all (although many are).  They say they even have some theists over there, too.

Anyway, I hope no one will take offense at my new moniker.

[DaveL]

Hi Bob,

I'm also registered over there, but haven't got into it in a big way (way too busy at Omnia, now here). I still get their newsletter.

It's funny, but they seem to expend alot of energy clarifying the word "Bright". (Just my observation )

Semantics aside, they seem pretty cool. Loved their explanation of naturalistic and their overall philosphy. They seem far more respectful than some of the other secular web sites I've trawled.

Now if only they had Pirates...

[Griffin NoName]

I just had a look. It's an interesting concept.

Continuing DaveL's point, I almost get the feeling they are obscuring what they don't want to say by self-referencing. That niggles.

I also question some of the divisions they do actually come clean and specify. - anyone who uses magnets to ward off desease for example. I know a GP who recommends this based he says on scientific theory - nothing supernatural - and he also claims that magnetic mattresses are used extemsively in Japan for health - again apparently on a scientific basis. So, is this exclusion based on scientific doubt, or on some unresolved mix-up between mystic healing and scientifc healing?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I just had a look. It's an interesting concept.

Continuing DaveL's point, I almost get the feeling they are obscuring what they don't want to say by self-referencing. That niggles.

I also question some of the divisions they do actually come clean and specify. - anyone who uses magnets to ward off desease for example. I know a GP who recommends this based he says on scientific theory - nothing supernatural - and he also claims that magnetic mattresses are used extemsively in Japan for health - again apparently on a scientific basis. So, is this exclusion based on scientific doubt, or on some unresolved mix-up between mystic healing and scientifc healing?

It's based on science (I'm guessing it is over at the brights, but ...)

When you study the science behind magnetic therapy, it's always using VERY, VERY HIGH gauss measurements - something on the order of what you'd experience in an MRI machine.  These fields are so powerful, that metal fillings can become painful, if too much time is spent inside, due to induced electrical currents.

When some enterprising folks tried to cash-in on this idea, they of course, had to use very expensive and very powerful rare-earth magnets.  Unfortunately, these very, very powerful magnets are NOT toys, and they can, and will wipe out nearby magnetic information.  Like, say the stripe on your credit cards, if you have one of these within a few feet of your wallet or purse.

Then factor in that these powerful magnets use expensive rare-earth materials.

The results were that the makers of "magnetic cures" changed to much cheaper and weaker magnets.

MUCH weaker:  so much weaker that they would not only not affect credit cards, but they wouldn't affect human flesh, either.  In fact, the fields won't penetrate the thickness of your skin.

Thus, the eventual discrediting of the so-called magnetic therapy:  magnets strong enough to penetrate human flesh would be dangerous to be around (some of these can actually destroy your fingers, if you get them between two, and they are released uncontrolled).  And these strong magnets would be prohibitively expensive.  And they'd screw up any magnetic-sensitive equipment, like you TV, your computer, your credit-cards, your cell phone, your clock-radio -- well, anything electronic, really.

(sorry about the rambling on ... is a subject somewhat close to home.  A close friend of my dad's was hooked into a magnetic therapy scheme - lost a ton of money, not helped one tiny bit; not even a placebo-effect. So, I did some research ...)

[Sibling Chatty]

I researched the Brights a while back, on the request of one friend and the advice of another.

That site is much less...agressively insistent about what they consider acceptable and not acceptable. I don't know if this is a reworking of the site i'd seen before or not.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Bright? Mmm... I consider myself a toadfish, does that sound (b)right?
:toadfish:

(...no, not that I'm a fish, a toadfish.. why the big guys in white? Oooo, nice jacket... but the sleeves are too long, and the fasteners.. this room doesn't have windows, although is cozy padded like this, do you use it for karate practice? Where are you going? Eh.. guys, guys...?)

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

But, based on their home-page statement, I've been a bright for many, many years - I just didn't know it.

I suspect many of you here are brights, too.  They are not a bunch of atheists at all (although many are).  They say they even have some theists over there, too.

I looked at the Bright movement a while back.  I think in most respects, I fit the descriptor "bright", but there was one thing that I couldn't reconcile: how does one deny the existence of "supernatural and mystic elements" (to quote their home page) using only logic and a "naturalistic worldview"?  It seems like a rather large leap for a movement that says it's based on logic, reason and observation.

Is saying "the unknowable does not exist" (or even "the unknowable is irrelevant") any more rooted in fact or observation than some other idea for what's beyond the etherial plane?

I think it's odd that I would have a problem with this, because I do generally live my life that way, but I don't know how to support this position using logic or rational argument.

Hmm...

[Opsa]

Hey B the BU, may we regard you as a Toadfish Bright?


Hmmm. Sounds like "Rainbo Brite".... sorry about that.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I looked at the Bright movement a while back.  I think in most respects, I fit the descriptor "bright", but there was one thing that I couldn't reconcile: how does one deny the existence of "supernatural and mystic elements" (to quote their home page) using only logic and a "naturalistic worldview"?  It seems like a rather large leap for a movement that says it's based on logic, reason and observation.

Is saying "the unknowable does not exist" (or even "the unknowable is irrelevant") any more rooted in fact or observation than some other idea for what's beyond the etherial plane?

I think it's odd that I would have a problem with this, because I do generally live my life that way, but I don't know how to support this position using logic or rational argument.

Hmm...

I agree with you - they claim to be indifferent to the unprovable, but then some of them turn around and say "no, god does not exist", which is an unprovable statement.

OTOH, I posted over there as "Bob the Unbeliever" and one of the mods pointed out a part of their main statement, in that they are not so much interested in DISS-proving anything as they are in promoting positive naturalistic-thinking.

Rather a fine point, but isn't the essence of being human, to strain over the fine points? 

Hey B the BU, may we regard you as a Toadfish Bright?

Hmmm. Sounds like "Rainbo Brite".... sorry about that.

LOL!!!  I would not be totally offended at being identified with that cartoon-icon. VERY positive.   

[Sibling Chatty]

Bob, they need to figure out the difference between DISbelief and UNbelief.

As a Christian, i've NEVER had an 'un'believer be rude or superioristic about their not believing in any 'religious entity'. I've had a good number of 'dis'believers that have been downright obnoxious about it. (Several of them were self-describing as Brights.)

It's the difference in "I think that since I don't believe, I am an unbeliever." and "I don't believe, I am a disbeliever, and because I don't believe, you shouldn't either."

Fine line semantically, HUGE line ethically.

[DaveL]

Personally, The Brights emphasis on sematics is a little dogmatic. That is probably why I haven't become more involved. Being what to say,or how to say it just don't appeal to this ole Pirate.

While I can see The Brights point to some extent, if someone/anyone (like Bob) chooses to use the word 'unbeliever',that should be jut as acceptable as someone who doesn't.

Whether it has negative connotations or not, it should not be frowned upon.

I'll go over there for another look to see what I can glean 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Bob, they need to figure out the difference between DISbelief and UNbelief.

As a Christian, i've NEVER had an 'un'believer be rude or superioristic about their not believing in any 'religious entity'. I've had a good number of 'dis'believers that have been downright obnoxious about it. (Several of them were self-describing as Brights.)

It's the difference in "I think that since I don't believe, I am an unbeliever." and "I don't believe, I am a disbeliever, and because I don't believe, you shouldn't either."

Fine line semantically, HUGE line ethically.

Thoughtful as always, Sib Chatty

Personally, I'm a huge fan of "I won't push what I think onto YOU, if you'll promise to do the same."

This is very different from "let's exchange ideas", is it not?

In the first case, a dogmatic attitude is somewhat implied.  In the second case, dialog is implied, with give-and-take. 

Dialog is a good thing, in my opinion. As someone wiser than I once said, "as long as we are still talking, we're not beating each other over the head".

As for me, I started with the moniker "unbeliever" years ago, as a way to distance myself from knee-jerk fanatics.  I wanted it clear that I wasn't one of those-- on ANY side of any fence.  "non-believer" would have worked, I suppose.  But, definitely NOT "anti-believer" which, to me, is the reverse side of the exact same coin.   I could have used the word "atheist", except that I'm not one.  And "agnostic" is so dry, I did not like that either; moreover it does not express me perfectly, either.

And I doubt anyone would have understood "Bob, of the quantum-state-of-faith" ... <huge grin> not to mention, it wouldn't have fit, most places.

I haven't posted over at The Brights much - I find that I don't have anything to contribute.  Nor has anything I've read motivated me to contribute my $0.02 worth.  But, it's a big site, I've only just scratched the surface.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

But, as others have already noted, there does seem to be a large-ish number of fanatics.  *sigh* I really don't much care for fanatics of ANY stripe, really.

It's why I like it HERE so much - we practice humbleness.  And, it's rather difficult to practice fanaticism and be humble about it. <huge-grin>

[Griffin NoName]

And I doubt anyone would have understood "Bob, of the quantum-state-of-faith" ...

That is just so perfect. It's totally different to agnostic and unbeliever. On the other hand (!) you might get giddy?

The DIS and UN is so so not distinguished^** by so so many people - the one that gets me is disinterested and uninterested - when I use one or other I MEAN one or the other and it matters.

Edit **  perhaps I mean unstinguished?

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

And I doubt anyone would have understood "Bob, of the quantum-state-of-faith" ...

That is just so perfect. It's totally different to agnostic and unbeliever. On the other hand (!) you might get giddy?

AND... I think you get a cat.  Or not.  No way to tell which, really.   

I'm starting to like the term "lapsed atheist"* for myself.


*thanks, Monty Python!

[amenabletocloisters]

Avast! Oi be humilably reportin' fer swabbin' duty, yer Monkships.

In me days Oi's done many a bad thing, 'n reckon it be time fer me ter do penance...

Arrr well...

Can one o' ye swabs be pointin' me in the direction o' the Trappist brewery?