@ShaundalynChic that was part of the reasoning behind choosing the name. It was supposed to be shocking, in your face and unapologetic. Judging by your reaction to it, they chose an effective title.
@Juefawn There are so many other reasonable names they could have chosen. Maybe "realists" or "naturalists" (though that may be taken). No matter how they avoid it, they are defined by being "not" theists. So their name should really disclose that, though I can see they may desire a name not depend on a negative.
@ShaundalynChic I totally agree. Its seriously pathetic. Why not just form a group called IQ over 130. Really, though when you think about it, its not the name that matters but what they are doing that does.
@ShaundalynChic that was part of the reasoning behind choosing the name. It was supposed to be shocking, in your face and unapologetic. Judging by your reaction to it, they chose an effective title.
MrTheBrent 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic that seems a really petty nitpick.
RayDandy 1 year ago
@Juefawn There are so many other reasonable names they could have chosen. Maybe "realists" or "naturalists" (though that may be taken). No matter how they avoid it, they are defined by being "not" theists. So their name should really disclose that, though I can see they may desire a name not depend on a negative.
ShaundalynChic 1 year ago
@ShaundalynChic I totally agree. Its seriously pathetic. Why not just form a group called IQ over 130. Really, though when you think about it, its not the name that matters but what they are doing that does.
Juefawn 1 year ago
Calling yourself a "Bright" has to be the most arrogant thing I have ever heard of.
ShaundalynChic 3 years ago