I agree. I'm not entirely comfortable labeling myself with what I am not. I just find it a more simple term to use in every day life. I'm still working for the best positive label for myself. Maybe I'll get on board with Bright yet.
The term does have it's uses if applied in negation to others:
- "I noticed you're not a bright when you started promoting this homeopathy stuff"
I wouldn't apply the term to describe myself though and if asked start right away with: "I hold a naturalistic worldview", an explanation you'd probably have to give anyway after the "Bright"-introduction.
I'm also very uncomfortable with the term 'brights'. To me it seems elitist and divisive. I also think it is condescending to Christians and other believers. There is a huge difference between being unintelligent and uninformed, and I think that a lack of knowledge, not intelligence, is what separates believers and non-believers. Believers are not necessarily unintelligent nor uneducated. However, they are uninformed - whether wilfully or not. I was reading Dawkins' site the other day and there was a post from a young man who said that before he read Dawkins, he had no idea that there were people who thought the world was more than 6000 years old! This is why so many Christians who undertake to study the Bible with intellectual honesty and scholarly rigour end up as atheists.
I love Dawkins and admire what he has done for atheism, but I'm afraid the idea of calling ourselves 'brights' is one I cannot agree with.
Bravo and well stated. I firmly believe that believers stop believeing because of just internal realization, 'waking up; which is what I am sure most of us did. Labeling ourselves as somehow smarter or more enlightened is just antagonistic.