Just wondering how many if any of the atheists or agnostics on this site are familiar with or perhaps belong to "The Brights"? I am a member. For those who have not heard of them, they are a group which members " have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural or mystical elements.". It is an international group with members all around the world. Members include atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Unitarians, Buddhists, and many others. They have a web site which is extensive and discusses many things. [the-brights.net] If you bother to go to it, do not just read the first page, go though all of it. It is worth your time and will explain many things. This is not a new organization, was founded in 2002.

Most Brights believe that public policies should be based on science (a body of knowledge obtained and tested by use of the scientific method). Brights are likely to oppose the practice of basing public policies on supernatural doctrines. Brights may therefore be described as secularists.

Many, but not all, brights also identify as atheist, antitheist, humanist (specifically secular humanist), freethinker, irreligionist, naturalist, materialist or physicalist, agnostic, skeptic, or even naturalistic pantheist. Even so, the "movement is not associated with any defined beliefs". The website Brights' Net says its goal is to include the umbrella term bright in the vocabulary of this existing "community of reason".

So I am wondering if there is enough people on this site interested in the concepts of The Brights to start up a group on this site to discuss their concepts, including support of their ideas as well as critiques of them?

As a postscript; the movement has been criticised by some (both religious and non-religious) who have objected to the adoption of the title "bright" because they believe it suggests that the individuals with a naturalistic worldview are more intelligent ("brighter" ) than non-naturalists, such as philosophical skeptics or idealists, believers in the paranormal, philosophical theists, or the religious. For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled "Not Too 'Bright'" in which he stated that although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins's and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted. The journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights'".

In response to this, Daniel Dennett has stated:

There was also a negative response, largely objecting to the term that had been chosen [not by me]: bright, which seemed to imply that others were dim or stupid. But the term, modeled on the highly successful hijacking of the ordinary word "gay" by homosexuals, does not have to have that implication. Those who are not gays are not necessarily glum; they're straight. Those who are not brights are not necessarily dim.