I don't consider myself a secular humanist. I think that's loaded with political baggage that I don't share. On moral views, I take the basic position that religious values are a good thing, have evolved the way they have because they are functional. I also take the view that I may well be wrong.

Secular humanists quite frankly annoy me. And I am not an atheist, for that requires a statement of absolute faith and conviction that I do not carry.

Why be quiet about who I am and what I believe? Why is having a skeptical, naturalistic worldview so nasty?

I don't consider non-brights to be dim or stupid at all. Some are quite brilliant, some smarter than me for sure. :-)

I've responded to some of this on your site, since your post there was longer.

Basically, I object to the use of the term Bright, which is both sort of silly sounding and possessed of other connotations, not the concept. In appropriate circles, I certainly express my views on the subject of the supernatural. We should just pick a better word is all.

I'm not sure what baggage secular humanist has as an intellectual label, although it is one decried by yahoo preachers and whatnot.

I agree on "atheist." It's essentially a religion on its own. I'm more an anti-theist.

---