N.Wells

I can’t resist putting in my 4 cents' worth (4 cents covers the inflation that someone mentioned, plus an increase because, hey, I’m Bright so it’s worth more.....).

I have to agree that Bright sounds silly and arrogant, and I can’t see using it in a self-description.

Depending on how much of an in-your-face conversation I want to get into, I’m sometimes happy with “I’m (a) ... rationalist, heathen, godless heathen, atheist, hard-core atheist, geologist"; "I’m god-free" (you can make up some words and break into song on that one), "I’m unencumbered on Sundays", "I’m well-rested on weekends", or, "I alternate between nonreligious, irreligious, and sacrilegious".

(I have long admired a friend who listed his religious affiliation in a mormon visitors’ book as “The Church of Methylated Spiritualists”.)

More seriously, I’m perfectly happy to be called an atheist, but then I’ve also stuck with being a liberal through both Bush presidencies. It is indeed legitimate for a group to want a positive name, and “atheist” is perhaps a bit negative in that it does define you by what you are missing rather than what you have gained.

The problem with euphemisms is that they always wear out quickly absent a change in the underlying reality and public perception (e.g., lavatory, toilet, outhouse, bathroom, restroom, etc., etc.). “Rationalist” is pretty good as a descriptor of atheistic viewpoints, but in terms of demanding a place in national discussions and pushing for political (church/state-separation) agendas, I’d vote for “non-religious”, as in “we, the non-religious, would like our children to be able to take science classes in public schools without encountering religious preaching”. It’s simple, exact, respectful, reasonable, and non-inflammatory.

N.Wells

On reflection, a better term occurred to me. I like "I'm an evidencist", meaning "I accept only views for which there is scientific-quality evidence."

Oresta

I came late to this thread and have read only a few pages, so my apologies if my point has already been made/belabored.

This discussion brings to mind the story of the woman, not wanting the label of matron, who taught her child to call her by her first name, "Mary". All went well until the reluctant mom learned that her daughter was calling the mothers of her playmates "Marys".

The negative connotation of "atheist" arises not from the word itself, but the affect associated to it by - um - "dims". Call us what you will, and that word becomes a code word to many to mean "apostate", "satanist", "lost soul", sinner", "weirdo", etc.

"Atheist" is a fine, concise word. It describes my belief system with accuracy, clarity and economy. Cute names obfuscate who I am. Leave the language spin to the ad agencies and this Orwellian administration.

The term "gay" has become a non-perjortive term in mainstream media because gay people began to come out of the closet in record numbers and the world saw that they were just normal people. I see that as a model for all of us.

GunnerJ

I AM NOW READY TO PUT ON MY LIGHTBULB HAT AND CALL MYSELF A BRIGHT TOTALLY NOT KIDDING.

Shake

:notworthy Classic! I love it!

JGL53

Agreed. But I just prefer the label 'non-theist' to 'atheist'. Is that OK? Uh, it means the same thing, right?

((BTW, as someone mentioned on another thread, 'Bright' is too reminiscent of 'Clear', as in Scientology.))

Oresta

"Non-theist" certainly has the same meaning as "atheist", but would you say it carries the same negative connotation?

viscousmemories

I told my sister (fundamentalist christian and mother of four) that I administer a private discussion forum for non-theists only, and she asked me what a theist is. And we're talking about someone who goes to church, bible studies and prayer meetings at least weekly.

copernicus

I don't think that "non-theist" carries the same negative baggage as "atheist", but I actually prefer to refer to myself as a "non-believer" when the subject comes up in conversation with those I believe to be theists--i.e. most strangers. The fact is that "theist" is not in the vocabulary of most people, and they think of "atheist" as roughly equivalent to "communist" on the social pariah meter. The term "agnostic" is less provocative, but it sounds a bit stand-offish.

Most critics of the "Bright" term point out that it wasn't well thought out. It was adopted without considering better alternatives. However, every single counterproposal that I have heard sounds worse for one reason or another. The words come off as sounding just as pretentious as "bright" or really awkward. Does anyone seriously think that terms "evidencist" or "unifier" are better choices?

The fact is that "Bright" was thought out quite a bit. There are no good obvious alternatives to it. That is why the web site goes to such great lengths to blunt the "pretentiousness" objection. I think that the backers of the movement see this as the achilles heel of the proposal, and it is. None of their arguments have prevented anyone, especially the alleged "Brights" themselves, from blowing right past their arguments and charging the movement with having gross pretensions.

I still believe that the fate of the word will depend more on how the public and the larger nontheist community reacts than our own smaller portion of the community. Brightism is, frankly, openly intended as a publicity stunt. It is supposed to make people notice our existence and respond to it. If it fails to grab the imagination of most people, then it fades away. It doesn't really need the backing of a majority of the nontheist community to be successful. It just needs to get used in public by some prominent nontheists and by theists. The rest of us will come around if the idea seems to be going somewhere.

viscousmemories

I have no problem with calling myself an atheist. I agree that to most believers it has about the same effect as saying, "I'm a pedophile", but then it just sucks to be them. I don't care about their personal judgement of me, and if they're going to discriminate against me politically or professionally because of my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), they're going to do it whether I say I'm a non-believer, unbeliever, heretic, infidel, atheist, bright, satan worshipper, protestant or muslim too, depending on what they call themselves and what religion they align themselves with. Because I'm not a drooling psychopath with horns on my head and bloodshot eyes (usually), I honestly have found that the bluntness with which I state to total strangers that I'm an atheist often makes them curious enough to inquire further.

I don't think you really mean "point out", because that implies that it's a fact, doesn't it? And in the next paragraph you refute the point. Anyway I agree that the alternatives you have just cited sound every bit as absurd as Bright (okay fine, I'll drop the ™ for now but I'll follow their lead and keep it capitalized) and that atheist, non-theist, infidel, heretic and heathen all have negative associations, but what about naturalist? The word already exists, its actual definition is dead on accurate, it's not really that hard to pronounce if people try really hard and study their "hooked on phonics" for five hours every day, it has no negative connotations, it doesn't sound ridiculous and I haven't heard a single reason not to use it other than "it sounds too much like 'naturist', which is almost unspeakably irrelevant. What in the name of god is wrong with using that word? Oh right, it's hard to write on small posters with dull crayons. A shame, because it's really much, much more precise.

I'm not really sure what your point is, but I think you're absolutely right that they thought long and hard before settling on this particularly stupid choice of word. Unfortunately the amount of time spent on an idea does not a good idea make.

Well, I agree that the public will decide the fate of the word (prediction: it'll be dead within the year) but I disagree that "the rest of us will come around". You've probably noticed that infidels tend to be particularly skeptical and stubborn. That's because many of us (most of us, likely) were lied to by people in authority for many years of our life, and at some point opened our eyes, removed our heads from our asses, and started making our own decisions about what we will and will not endorse. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, there is a large and vocal number of naturalists who will not ever embrace the word Bright to describe themselves. And without substantial acceptance and usage, it becomes completely ineffective as a tool for rallying naturalists into a political force.

Oh, and damn you for making me persist in this discussion.

vm