I agree that we want to identify ourselves as being similar to everyone else. On the other hand, we disagree with theists and metaphysical supernaturalists. This is a real difference, it's just not as major and far-reaching a difference as some theists and metaphysical supernaturalists claim. I like to put the emphasis on the need to properly justify our conclusions about how the world works on the overall direction of the available empirical evidences. So label me an empiricist. My motto is: evidence first.
As for the Brights, the "movement" itself is positive, they are trying to promote secularist activism. However, the bright label is unavoidably aggressive, more aggressive than gay, denials notwithstanding, and as a result this label is unlikely to ever gain the same traction/currency as the gay label. I prefer the humanist and secularist labels, and metaphysical naturalist and atheist. I think it is unfortunate that many people are uncomfortable with the atheist label. Part of the problem is that many people have internalized the incorrect, unreasonable, negative definitions of atheism given by theists, part of the problem is that many people have not given the overall topic enough thought to adopt a self-confident position on the question, and part of the problem is that some theists, who do not adopt an empirical approach, deliberately try to confuse the issue by redefining theism as being synonymous with anything good, everything positive and nothing bad.
On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Rodriguez <[address removed]> wrote: