I am a "Bright."

A bright is someone who has a worldview, or a view of the universe, that is naturalistic, not requiring the supernatural or magical.
"Atheist" is a term used by theists to describe someone who does not subscribe to their notions of how the universe is put together. I refuse to be defined in terms of something I'm not.
"Atheist" does not, necessarily, mean anti-theist, although, unfortunately, many theists assume that this is true.
If a person holds a belief that their universe includes a god of any sort, then, by definition, that person is a theist. Most people like to think that they, themselves, embody the standard of "normal" in their experience. I have no quarrel with their views, providing those views are not used to define my own or used to try to force me to be or behave in any particular fashion contrary to my conscience, ethics, or morality.
"Agnostic," in common parlance, means a person who acknowledges that there is or may be a god or gods, but the holder of that title hasn't sufficient evidence to make a qualified choice as to who , what or how many.

Humanist, agnostic, and atheist are good, valid terms but these terms have acquired a great deal of baggage and misrepresentation over the years and are inadequate to describe one who simply holds no particular beliefs or has no need or desire to be labeled in those tired, overused terms.
"Bright" does not mean smarter, dumber, more intelligent or anything of that sort, just as the term "gay" has come to represent a person who is attracted to another of the same sex, not necessarily happier or funnier.

So, I am a bright-unencumbered by a need to ascribe any part of my experience to magical or supernatural beings or forces-not against it, mind you-just totally lacking of any belief about it at all.
Am I proud to be a bright? No, not really, just as I am not proud to be an American or a Christian or a Jew. I did nothing to be proud of to become an American--I was born here and grew up here. The thing I could be proud of is a long and wearing search to find out what all the religious fuss was about, only to find out that I ended up right where I was. Here I am.

I think that non-believers fill as large a spectrum of thought as believers do. I do have a question, though-you say your worldview is "naturalistic". Does this mean simply that you observe the forces of nature without ascribing a divine reason behind them, or does it also mean that you enjoy being in nature, enjoying, for example, a striking sunrise or the cool gentleness of rain? This question probably sounds silly to you, but the latter is the impression I got as I read your post.

Thanks for asking.
In this case the meaning of naturalistic would be closer to the following: representing what is real; not abstract or ideal; not requiring the supernatural as explanation, cause or justification; pragmatic or practical; real, measurable; based on scientific explication; etc.

Based on the most truthful and objective studies I can find, so far, 10% to 14% of the American population as well as the world, generally, do not consider themselves believers in ony sort of deity. 29 million plus of us-right here in the USA!

Actually, in a way, I am like you, in that I am interested in only what is real. However, my experiences with Reality have been different from yours. I wish you well, and hope you have time today to enjoy life.

in the OP.

I definitely believe there is more than is simply observable, what some term as 'supernatural'- or a 'God'- but that what we think of as God is a natural energetic phenomenon that can fit into a rational definition of the universe.

Am I a bright or a theist? Or just a whacko? lol

dupe

:7

:applause:

(since to this point we've been boxed in by the words of believers), I really don't like the word "bright." We can say all day how it doesn't mean we're smarter, but that's how it will come off.

I'd rather just reclaim "atheist" from the religious bigots who defined it for us.

It's a pc term for ashamed and/or fearful atheists and I refuse to give up my identity in order to pacify believers who vilify atheism.

When I first ran into the brights, as they were just getting geared up, I spent a lot of time rubbing names and stereotypes together and, although I didn't really care for the name, I couldn't come up with anything better. I think, at some point, the move in that direction will help. The biggest reason for the OP was to establish a bit of order. Even here in the belly of the tolerance beast the misunderstanding between points of view and the obvious "why doesn't that guy understand me?" thinking gives rise to a lot of testiness.

I am guilty of having a Pollyanna-ish streak of "lets try to all get along." Part of what keeps me on this side of the line instead of over there with the haters.
Self righteousness is a constant foe, no matter where one stands, so I have to be constantly on guard.

'naturalist' would be a good name - as you said in your OP, your worldview is 'naturalistic' (and 'naturist' has already been taken too :-)). 'Secularist' isn't a bad description, but has political overtones - it's how you want government to be, rather than your conception of existence. 'Mundanist' has a very few uses on the web, most references being what appears to be Sir Richard Burton's translation of an Arab word 'Dahri' "one who believes in this world and not the next or another.". However, 'mundane' has connotations of 'little interest'.

But I'm still not convinced by 'bright'. As well as the possible implication of greater intelligence, it may also imply greater optimism.

'Tangiblism', anyone?

Study of Nature and natural history is the prism with which I view the world. I need nothing else and don't see where anything else is required. One would have to seperate those "natural theologians" who strive through many convulsions to relate all of Nature to their god. Unnecessary complexity.

Your mention of Sir Richard caught my attention. What an interesting person. I possess an old copy of his translation of 1001 Nights, what a joy to read!

:)

But I can understand why so many folks can identify with it.

Brighty of the Grand Canyon, the story of an heroic burro.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0689714858/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-6462571-7087212#reader-link

Maybe we should just stick to Atheist.

term that tries to import the connotations of the word where many wouldn't naturally place them.

I chuckled at how self-reassuring the first 'brights' to announce themselves as such must have felt, because 'dim' was the immediate word that came to mind to describe those who weren't bright. I despise dimwitted attempts to manipulate me using language.

Find a neutral word, a genuine neologism. English phonotactics allow for numerous strings of perfectly reasonable English sounds that don't already have meanings; even taking into account Jakobson and Waugh's ideas about sound symbolism, there are undoubtedly thousands of candidates that don't aggrandize the self while implicitly denigrating others.

but I feel more comfortable with atheist as we define it. Atheist is so unstructured, so free thinking. But I understand the desire for a more positive way of describing that lack of belief in supernatural beings. I also don't think we want to come off as thinking ourselves brighter than other people.

Maybe there is a way to add the natural focus into it, but like Muriel says, so many organizations with nature have been taken already. I guess I'm satisfied with being a natural atheist. I do get a sense of awe when out in nature, wonderful aesthetic experiences, as well as some pretty difficult experiences, but I don't associate a God force with nature. It's just nature, and it is very powerful, and we are part of nature.

atheists using the term "Bright" to describe themselves is most definitely viewed as arrogant and elitist; and does not advance an atheists position.

You guys should stick with Atheist.

I agree.

I find the term cloying and annoying, personally.

I much prefer referring to myself in terms of what I am, rather than what I am not (atheist).

Thanks for the post