I declare myself atheist, feminist & liberal. Also “anti-family” as to some definitions of family.

For my own part, I accept that there is at least a tiny possibility that most anything might be true – it just happens to be a spectrum. In all honesty, I put the existence of fairies around the same likelihood that a theistic god exists and only fractionally more likely than the notion that I will suddenly start defecating gold. On the other hand, I put the likelihood of some form of physical/spiritual duality somewhere rather more likely than the existence of a theist god and closer to the likelihood that a blind watchmaker type god exists or existed. At the same time, I think the possibility that extra terrestrials will someday visit earth rather more likely than any of these, because there is a rather profound likelihood that such beings actually exist – somewhere.

I do not think it the least bit irrational to express it in much the way that I just did. Indeed I do so fairly regularly. Living in the midwest, I get a lot of incredulous responses when I happen to mention that I am an atheist – the most common being; “How do you know there’s no god?” I think it is extremely valuable to explain to people who ask me that, what exactly being an atheist means and using more examples than the existence of a theistic god or any other, makes it much clearer to people. In a sense it provides a much more accurate understanding of exactly where I am coming from. I am a rationalist atheist – I accept few things as absolute truth and accept few notions that lack a great deal of evidence to support them at all. So not only do I throw out examples from one end of the spectrum, I throw some out from the other end as well.

How far I actually go, of course, is directly correlate to how rapidly the eyes of the person I am talking to glaze over. I usually get much the same reaction to this discussion, that I do to discussing the history of the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires…

Bright. A serious misstep and misguided label coined and conceived by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. Essentially rationalists who just want to emphasize that they are smarter than everyone else. It’s one label I refuse to apply to myself.

Although they did promote it by writing favorable articles, the Brights were NOT the brainchild of either Dennett or Dawkins, and (according to the people who DID coin the word in this context – Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert (2003)) has nothing to do with intelligence. To be fair, the original usage is so ingrained, so embedded in modern English, that thinking of it in a different context provokes a bit of cognitive dissonance. However, if you’re curious, you can always go read about the Brights (and why they choose that word) at their website.

I do think it was a misstep precisely because of the connotations you mention. I just think it’s only fair to judge an idea by its content, rather than superficial appearance.

Atheist works for me, though I rather like at least the idea of using the word “Bright.” I don’t define myself as much by what I don’t do or believe, but what I do, so words that have a positive, progressive feel to them are much preferred.

That’s how science works.

So if you’re “on the fence” in an effort to hedge your bets, then you’re doomed to eternity in hell OR a lifetime of doubt. Either way doesn’t sound pleasant to me. I’d rather be an agnostic atheist in the sense that the balance of probability is vastly against any deities that have ever been proposed by humankind thus far, short of the deist or pantheist “God”. That way I don’t live a life of doubt and regret and should the Abrahamic God (or, say, Horus, or Odin) exist, at least I’ve been consistent in my demand for proof of him so when I get sent to Niflheim at least then I know I had it coming.

1) Sticklers for the philosophical, rather than general, definitions.

2) People who are poorly informed about the meaning of the terms.

3) People who want to believe.