Re: the brights (the cure & the naturalistic worldview)

[japanesebaby]

this is hardly a piece of news (might move this topic later), but i would just be curious does anyone remember how long the banner/link to http://www.the-brights.net/ has been visible on the official site?

even though i've grown a bit skeptic about some of the direction of bob's recent musical ventures, i have to say i give him credit for that link.
some time ago i got bashed for suggesting that robert might have gone mad (which also could be read as another way of saying he's gone emo :-P), but i think this link very well proves that he's (still) a very sane person. 

[revolt]

this is hardly a piece of news (might move this topic later), but i would just be curious does anyone remember how long the banner/link to http://www.the-brights.net/ has been visible on the official site?

even though i've grown a bit skeptic about some of the direction of bob's recent musical ventures, i have to say i give him credit for that link.
some time ago i got bashed for suggesting that robert might have gone mad (which also could be read as another way of saying he's gone emo :-P), but i think this link very well proves that he's (still) a very sane person. 

I'll tell you something: however positive / intelligent /sensible / healthy / pick-your-favourite-quality-here these people might be, the name "brights" sounds completely ridiculous... It almost is enough to make me start despising these lot. 

[japanesebaby]

this is hardly a piece of news (might move this topic later), but i would just be curious does anyone remember how long the banner/link to http://www.the-brights.net/ has been visible on the official site?

even though i've grown a bit skeptic about some of the direction of bob's recent musical ventures, i have to say i give him credit for that link.
some time ago i got bashed for suggesting that robert might have gone mad (which also could be read as another way of saying he's gone emo :-P), but i think this link very well proves that he's (still) a very sane person. 

I'll tell you something: however positive / intelligent /sensible / healthy / pick-your-favourite-quality-here these people might be, the name "brights" sounds completely ridiculous... It almost is enough to make me start despising these lot. 

actually you're absolutely right. you know the first time i saw that link on thecure.com my first thought was "now wtf is that, sounds totally ridiculous - it must be a link to some 30 seconds to fall out bright-boy on mars happy-land or something".
weird that they'd pick such a silly name, since you'd expect anyone bright enough to be bright enough () to also be aware that first appearances can be quite important.

anyway, i'm not here to advertise that site in particular or tell people to join there. like said, i've just been bashed for being negative (although i don't think so myself) so i just thought i'd bring up something that might bring up some positive vibes, in a way. perhaps.
and whatever the community's name is and whoever they are, i have to say that i do tip my hat to anyone every fellow naturalist out there. it's the world view that at least to me does make  most sense and that would actually be the most healthier one for the whole planet, in a long run. something like robert once said in an interview in 2001:
"if we could only rule out religion even for one year, people would be surprised how much happier the place could be".

i am very much convinced about the same thing. i wish we'd one day give ourselves an opportunity to try and see how the world could be without all the "compulsory" religious attitudes laid all over everything, without letting all that cloud our view. i do wish we'd have that chance.

and it's also true that unfortunately it's a lot more easier for anti-naturalist opinions/communities get to be heard in the media and therefore also get their ideas/views/opinions promoted in political and social world. and that is because religious-based communities are so well organized, they usually have a long history of being organized which goes back to the origins of the religion in question: most religions are gathered around churches or similar communities, whereas naturalists seem to be quite scattered. they typically always were either some lone individual thinkers or some quiet people out there you never even heard about. in both cases, they had very little possibilities/ways to really have impact on the society - even though they'd have a lot to say, and often very (eh) bright (;-P) things to say. but they didn't/still don't get heard because of the lack or support coming from an organized community of their own.
so it's not that specific community/website alone, it's the attitude behind it itself that interests me here. and the benefits i'd see in getting that attitude more supported in public.

but yeah, that site name is surely a bit dumb.
anyway the original point of my post was just to say that ol' bob hasn't gone all mad yet (whatever his musical endeavours might be).

(ps. just edited the subject a bit)

[punx_chix]

this is hardly a piece of news (might move this topic later), but i would just be curious does anyone remember how long the banner/link to http://www.the-brights.net/ has been visible on the official site?

I feel like that link has been there for quite awhile..but until now I don't think I had ever acknowledged it! And yes it tis a silly name, but I get their point and I suppose I am one...I have a hard time talking with "supers" all the time..ha 

[Bloodflower]

It's been there... a year, maybe more. I remember there being this great big huff about it on one of the other forums ages ago. Made me laugh.

[~*CherryRed*~]

I didn't have a clue what you were all going on about, so I looked... Hmm, well I can't count myself as a BRIGHT - damn it! I really really want to believe in Ghosts! I've never seen one, but I really would love to. Only because I want to be a phantom when I die and annoy/scare the shite out of people I hate. As you will figure out all on your own - I'm an idiot!

I  think saying naturalistic worldview is a bit misleading... makes me think of nature rather than atheism, which is what this basically is, is in not? (or am I getting it all wrong, which is totally possible, and most likely the case).

Also I have (being an non-religious person ie; Atheist) had NO problem ever with society condemning me (and I quote; "Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed. To be a Bright is to participate in a movement to address the situation.") for not believing in any "supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities." Quite the opposite, which is a surprise. Alot of people I meet and chat to about this kinda thing are in agreement with me. Religion (and therefore believing in "supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities.") is a waste of space.

[japanesebaby]

I  think saying naturalistic worldview is a bit misleading... makes me think of nature rather than atheism, which is what this basically is, is in not?.

actually, it's not. naturalists say there's nothing else but a single natural world, without any division to natural vs. supernatural. the concept of supernatural there involves a whole lot of more than just god. but being someone who denies the existence of a creature called god, an atheist is offering an anti-thesis for belief in god - and therefore one could even say that atheism is actually something that is actually still being defined by the concept of god, it's not completely free from the concept of god after all...
besides, a person can say he/she is an atheist which means he/she doesn't believe in god but but still believe in some sort of supernatural (a bit like you said).
so, atheists are surely one type of naturalists, but just one. it is really a lot wider concept than that and it's not about a community for atheists there. see (a quote from that ill-named site):

"The constituency of Brights is hugely diverse. Besides those who self-identify as atheist, humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, rationalist, naturalist, agnostic, or skeptic, there are individuals who go by their preferred affiliations, such as Ethical Culturalist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Yogi, Wiccan, Transhumanist, or Unitarian. Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion's cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism."

you can also check out: http://www.naturalism.org/atheism.htm

(i think they make a good point, starting by saying that "In denying the existence of god, atheism gets half the story right about the supernatural."
so what about the other half? that's the point.)


and from http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm:

"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it. Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself. So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe. Naturalism shows our full connection to the world and others, it leads to an ethics of compassion, and it gives us far greater control over our circumstances."

[~*CherryRed*~]

Hmm, fair enough...

[revolt]

Also part of the gamut of constituents are Jews, Catholics, Quakers, Episcopalians, and others who may personally maintain their religion's cultural or aesthetic aspects, but not its supernaturalism."

Well, if those Jews, Catholics, etc, don't believe in any sort of supernatural then they are not really Jews, Catholics, etc. Because it is in the very nature of being, say, a Catholic, the fact that one believes in some sort (actually, not just SOME sort, but a very SPECIFIC sort) of supernatural world/entity.

and from http://www.centerfornaturalism.org/descriptions.htm:

"Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it.

I actually have a problem with that "as shown by science". Because science has evolved through times, it has abandoned views that were once believed to be the correct ones and adopted new ones instead, which, in their turn, remain provisory, that is, they cannot be seen as the final truth to be hold forevermore. So this "truth" that there is a single natural world might be proven wrong sometime in the future. Also, there are so many different dimensions and perspectives to things, that this idea of "single" might not even be one that could be really understood by any single person. Hope I'm not being to vague or "obscure" here.

By the way, I am an atheist, too, I just have trouble in believing in ANY conception that pretends to grasp / understand the whole of reality.

[Ulrich]

but yeah, that site name is surely a bit dumb.
anyway the original point of my post was just to say that ol' bob hasn't gone all mad yet (whatever his musical endeavours might be).

Oh well, he used to be called "Mad Bob" back in the day, eh? 

Some good points made by revolt!
I'd like to add: the "rules" they name on the website "brights" simply seem "semi-religious" to me too. (Like, "if you wanna part of us, you have to disbelieve in anything supernatural". Just like if you wanna be part of a religion "you have to believe in God" or something.)  :roll:

[~*CherryRed*~]

I'd like to add: the "rules" they name on the website "brights" simply seem "semi-religious" to me too. (Like, "if you wanna part of us, you have to disbelieve in anything supernatural". Just like if you wanna be part of a religion "you have to believe in God" or something.)  :roll:

Hey now this is a good point! That has always been my trouble, I really like the ideals behind paganism - but then there are too many rules applied even to that... I can't be told what to do and when to do it I'm afraid! If I'm in the mood when the moon is full to do a little dance nude I will, and not when 'they' reckon it is best to be done! Go with the flow and do as you please, just try not to hurt to many other things in the process.

[revolt]

If I'm in the mood when the moon is full to do a little dance nude I will, and not when 'they' reckon it is best to be done! .[/color]

Well, that could actually be an interesting thing to watch, but don't worry, I will not be asking you to post here a photo or film with that kind of thing...

By the way, reading your posts might demand a little readjustment on the visual field, but I'm actually quite glad that your nickname isn't RibbonYellow or RosePink...