Pandaemonium

You forgot the homosexual members or "rainbow-brights"...

wildernesse

And, just like there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are no Brights in a fight!

Catchy slogans abound with the new term! I'm rather fond of some of the ones on Rufus's earlier list. We had quite a nice time trying out new slogans! What a hoot!

And it also fits easily into new sermons by fundies, I mean there are numerous sermons about Christians being lights for their community, and that God's word is a light to our paths--what better contrast than a group of people who fashion themselves as "Brights" but are consumed with the darkness of the world and their pride in themselves as enlightened individuals. It sums that whole atheist worships himself, pride in intelligence, arrogance thing up in a nutshell--it is an umbrella term.

I'm not sure why such bright advocates don't see that any catchiness will be definitely caught and used to their disadvantage by the same people who create negative stereotypes of non-theists. This in addition to the condescending connotation of the word "bright" to begin with.

--tibac

GunnerJ

I'm pretty sure enrius was being sarcastic, wilder. At least, I hope he was.

wildernesse

I hope so. Unfortunately, I had fundy sermonizing running through my head all afternoon. Only semi-entertaining, fundy sermons are performance art not matters for daydreams.

--tibac

freemonkey

The premise of this entire debate would make an excellent Christopher Guest movie....

I'll just say that I won't be calling myself a "Bright".

enrious

I just refuse to be known by a term that sounds like it should be an ironically title show on Fox TV.

Celsus

My 2 cents: The name is only good if it's catchy. All the rational reasons in the world won't matter if people write it off the first time they hear it (as I did, and many other atheists as well, it seems). Did gay people sit down at a committee meeting pondering over a term to call themselves? (Jeez, I hope not) There is something very self-parodying about this whole issue.

I like Infidel. I'm immensely proud of my infidels.org email address. The Secweb has been unconsciously promoting this term since it registered infidels.org. Dawkins et al. may be thinking of memes and trying to exploit their power, but they forget that rationality is not the sole (or even the best) driving force for memes.

Joel Ng (official Internet Infidel)

Baloo

I like the general idea... but I deplore the choice of word. I'll not beat that dead horse, though.

Rather, in the spirit of contributing positive criticism, might I suggest a new word altogether... like "menat" (pronounce meh-`nat) or "metist" (`meh-tist), as shorthand notations for "metaphysical naturalist" (which is really what a "bright" seems to be).

Compare these dialogues, which are presented without the slightest amount of bias

Dialogue 1:
J: Hi, I'm Jerry. Where do you go to church?
K: Hi Jerry, I'm Keith, and I don't go to church.
J: Oh? Why not?
K: I'm a bright.
J: A what?
K: A bright. It's a new term for someone who believes that the natural world is all there is.
J: So you're saying anyone who believes in God isn't bright? Are you saying I'm a "dim"?
K: Um, no, not at all. I'm just saying I am a bright, not that I am bright... but not that I'm dim either. And certainly, you might be bright, but you don't qualify as a bright, because you believe in God. Ya see?
J: Interesting. Out of curiosity, why don't you call yourself a "pompous", an "arrogant", or a "smug"?
K: Um, no reason... I've got to run... By the way, from here on out, would you mind refering to all atheists as "brights"?

Dialogue 2:
J: Hi, I'm Jerry. Where do you go to church?
K: Hi Jerry, I'm Keith, and I don't go to church.
J: Oh? Why not?
K: I'm a metist.
J: A what?
K: A metist. It's a new term for someone who believes that the natural world is all there is.
J: What a weird word. Why in the world do you use "metist" instead of "blotto" or "jugop"?
K: (chuckle) Actually, metist is just shorthand for "metaphysical naturalist", which tends to be a bit of a mouthful, but really describes how I see the world. Basically, I don't believe in anything supernatural.
J: You mean, you don't believe in God? [respectful theological discussion ensues]

girlwriter

Now there is an example of a word that doesn't already have a meaning as a noun and is catchy. I still feel that an umbrella term is a misguided concept to begin with, and I still feel that the words we already have are just fine, but this is the closest thing to a reasonable suggestion I've heard so far.

If this were to actually catch on, at least I can imagine a scenario in which someone (upon hearing that I don't believe in god,) sais, "oh, then you're a menat?" and I dont' get all red in the face and feel like an idiot, like I would with bright.

But I still like atheist, agnostic, non-theist, naturalist.

Shake

Nah, it's too close to mentat, the human-supercomputers from Dune. So, in that case, it's even worse than bright. Bright implies intelligence, but mentats are like geniuses, so the misunderstanding would be that you're not merely intelligent, but far more intelligent than others.