By definition I am a bright. However, I hate the name. Why are Brights not naturalists, which is more descriptive, accurate, and less cocky sounding. Where does the term come from and why do people like it?
And Brights sounds like Mensa, except people proclaim themselves a member.
I probably will never introduce myself as one, but if someone was to ask me if I am a Bright in relation to the context presented here I wouldn't say no I am not, even if they mis-understood it. I would attempt to at the very least present what I felt it was in relation to whatever their misconception of it was.
Realist is descriptive and leaves little room for misinterpretation. Having said that, the word is often associated with a worldview that's devoid of warmth and feeling.
If those of us that consider ourselves realists, freethinkers, atheists, agnostic atheists, non-theists, anti-theists, naturalistic pantheists, brights, rationalists, etc.- have I missed anyone?- can't agree on appropriate terms and argue about accepted meanings vs. intended meanings, it's unreasonable to think that we could ever come up with an all-encompassing term that would be useful in describing this "movement" to theists, believers, religionists, the faithful, etc. This would require the authority of a central organization reigning over the lot of us. To accept the legitimacy of such an authority runs counter to freethought. So the labels will persist and increase and the disputes over their meanings will be with us till we die. And I wouldn't want it any other way.
That's new to me. It's a neat observation, but I'd still rather call myself a realist, or something similar, when discussing with a theist aspects of the enormous fraud that constitutes religion and the non-existence of gods except in fiction. Terry.
I'm an atheist... I'm a bright... I'm a realist... I'm a rationalist... I'm a humanist... I'm an evolutionist... I'm an environmentalist... I'm a naturalist... I'm a scientist... I'm all of these things.