The full name is the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. I don’t think they’re claiming to be Jesus Christ or saints, any more than Lutherans claim to be Martin Luther. As I understand it, however, they do believe that they will be saints once they die.
May I suggest that people refer to atheists by the arbitrary verbal tag 'The Flawless Ones of Shining and Perfect Intellect"; it isn’t intended to be a declaration of superiority, or anything like that, really it isnt - it’s just a convenient term of reference that purely by chance happens to mean something or other to a few people.
In much the same way that homosexuals are often called 'The Friends of Dorothy", and this doesn’t actually describe any real-world platonic relationship with any such named individual, so it should be with atheists; 'The Flawless Ones of Shining and Perfect Intellect" is just a handy label so that we can all be clear who we are bowing down t… ummm… I mean referring to.
This is the attitude that makes some sort of movement of the type being discussed necessary. Athiests, naturalists, and agnostics are not merely “godless”. The fact is that rational interpretations of reality are in possible.
The whole point is that some people believe that the ultimate nature of existance can only be revealed by revelation. Meanwhile others think that man’s mind might just be able to reason perfectly workable explanations. In order to make this discussion more main stream, we need a way to identify the atheist/naturalist/agnostic position which is not merely “anti-god”.
I may have qualms about the term “Bright”, but it is just as good as any. He could simply have used “pufglant”.
Cool. I’ll be a FOSPI 
Well if you insist, but only if we can refer to religious people as our “bitches” - purely as a catch-all.
Oops. that second quote was’t from lissner. :smack:
Certainly any objection to this is purely in the mind and therefore may be safely glossed over.
How about “The Lean.” Our philosophy is stripped of non-observable fat. The word “Lean” is linguistically redundant, it has no negative connotations, and it would be absurd to argue that atheists are trying to say that they are skinnier than the religious.
I prefer “godless pagan”. Conjures images of dancing nekkid around a fire, gnawing on a ribs dripping with grease, and fornicating in the shadows.
Oh, I like the fornicating part. Where can I pick up one of your newsletters?
I think theistic Neo-Pagans may have an issue with that. 
I second Mangetout’s question: was the term “gay” simply “reclaimed” by homosexuals, or did they invent the new meaning, with social and political intent. Also, I wonder if the term gay itself has done much for the homosexual rights movement. It’s certainly become a slur in certain quarters (see also: retarded, moron, imbecile, and idiot).
Personally, I don’t see the probelm with saved or God’s Chosen. I can’t see those titles stinging much if you doubt there’s a God to do the chosing or anything to be saved from.
Atheists would do better to improve their social standing by other means. Gives us some good popular atheistic literature and art, for example.
Obviously the term everyone is groping for is “MEBucknerians”.
Naturally, as the Supreme High Rational Overmind, it’s in keeping with the basic fundamentals of Natural Selection that my genes be spread as widely as possible, so all really hot–that is, genetically superior–atheis…–er, I mean, MEBucknerian–women, plus of course any genetically superior women we can rescue from the dark pits of superstition, should be my brides.
hhmm… the “Sinful” then ? Maybe “Hellbound” !?
I took the idea of not having a negative construction like A-Theism from the Pro-Life & Pro-Choice confrontation. Both sides chosing a positive reference for their views. Thou many so called pro-lifers defend the Death Penalty… they should be called anti-abortion.
Still even thou he doesnt exist... the lack of Him defines our "group" no matter what, that is Sad. Non-Theist. A-Theist. Un-beleivers. Godless.
So lets try some more options using "Pro-" ? Pro-Rational. Pro-Skeptic ? Pro-Human. Pro-Secular ? In a more humorous extension: Pro-Fane or for our more agnosticly bent: Pro-bablyI think you have it exactly backwards, Rashak. Religious people are defined by belief in the supernatural. This is an addition – there is no observable proof of supernaturality, there are no tests that can be designed to show it.
You look at it as the default human condition includes belief in God. Atheists and naturalists look at it as the only things they believe in are things within the realm of normal, testable, experience.
It would be like calling the well-fed the “ahungry.” It would like be calling the sane “apsychotics.” There is no reason why there shouldn’t be a term for those who live by observable truths only by defining them as those who don’t believe in a god. “Brights” may not be the best one, but there have been plenty of good ones suggested in this thread. “Naturalists” (at risk of sounding like the frequenters of nude beaches) works fine for me.
With risk of cracking open a philosophical can of whoop-ass, there are no compelling reasons why God should be a default part of our philosophy. Atheists and naturalists aim to correct a superstition that has been with humanity for tens of thousands of years. We got over trepanation for headaches. We are getting over infanticide and social caste systems and slavery. Maybe the next things we should tackle are religion and war.
This makes me out to be one of those fundamentalist atheists who I find no better than religious fundamentalists. I reassure you that this is not the case. I find that those who are decent towards other people and who work to enrich society deserve my praise irrespective of their religious beliefs. If their motivation is religion, it is fine by me just as long as they don’t expect me to partake in it. I just find that religion and decency aren’t particularly correlated.
OK, brights, skeptics, out…
How about the Prayselves? That is, you pray yourself, not a Divine being, to help succeed in anything.
I’m not so sure about “Naturalists.” To my mind, it brings images of an 18th century Englishman wandering around a jungle in a pith helmet while collecting bugs.
Regards
Testy
What’s wrong with atheïst? Who cares if we have a negative press? I don’t think the ‘theïsts’ are having all that good publicity either.
Call me bright or broccoli. I don’t care.
Oh, Rashak Mani I like ‘realists’ as well. Even though it’s though - or short; tho. 
Hmmm. I haven’t heard the term “Atheist” used perjoratively in my neck of the woods. In fact, I’ve heard far more negative terms used to describe people who are religious, notably Christians and Muslims. Just look at the connotations of the term “Fundie” when used to refer to Fundamentalist Christians. I’m aware of Bush’s quote about Atheists being unpatriotic, but my opinion of him is low enough that I wasn’t all that surprised.
I’m with Mangetout. The term “Bright” raises my hackles. Since I define myself by both my intelligence and my religious faith, I suppose that’s not surprising. More to the point, I’m a bit of a linguist who loves the English language. I don’t like hijacking a perfectly good word simply because some louts make it into an insult. For the record, I’ve been known to utter a curmudgeonly grumble about additional meaning “gay” has acquired. “Gay” at least, I understand, did have a few sexual connotations. “Bright” doesn’t, at least not when it comes to religion.
I’d like to ask the Atheists on this board a question: How many of you personally have heard or read the term “Atheist” used as a perjorative? I don’t think Bush’s quote counts, because as I read it, he used the term not as an insult, but as a word meaning “people who do not believe in God” and, from what I’ve seen of him, I wouldn’t be surprised to find he meant the Christian God, if it were politically correct to say so. If the term “Bright” were in as common use as “Atheist”, he would have used that term instead.
If you must have a new word, I like “Rationalist”, although I do consider myself rational, too. It seems to me to be an accurate description of where the Atheists I know best see their focus on religious matters. I like “Naturalist” too, but its existing connotations are now converging, so I’ve got a mental picture of a nude man hiking out into the wilderness to study wildlife. “Realist” would work for me, too, but as someone whose beliefs do have a tidy, existing description, at least on the surface, I don’t really have anything at stake in this except that love of the English language I mentioned.
CJ
OK, let’s settle this point right now. The english language is so wonderful precisely because it is such a bastard. We have always been fast and loose about adding new words or co opting words from other languages. So if you really object to making changes, you will have to refer to an exact date on which your dictionary was published.
I really don’t think that adding a new word to cover a new distinction is all that bad. We are talking about trying to cover under one concept several different notions of the ultimate character of the universe. Notice that everyone is using the term athiest. But this does not cover agnostics at all. And rationalists may not cover the intended philosophies either. Some people may believe that an understanding of god/notgod is not rationally possible either way.
Perhaps we are talking about people who believe in objective reality instead of superstition. Can we use the term “Objectivist”?
It’s not a question of allowing language to change; what is happening here is people are trying to force it to change in a rather contrived way.
By way of (completely OTT) analogy, suppose I declared that instead of the expression “Thank you”, I would instead say “Fuck off” - I might eventually persuade a few warped individuals to join me in this, but it would be totally unreasonable for me to be surprised at people taking offence over my contrived usage of a phrase that already conveys a different meaning.
There would be no use in my protesting that, although I said “Fuck off”, I was actually conveying my warmest and most heartfelt gratitude and that people shouldn’t be so oversensitive, because the expression is already widely accepted as conveying an aggressive meaning at quite a basic level.
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make, Mangetout, when I talked about Esperanto. Fuck off!
Daniel