I think it has a ring. Beats the hell out of “I’m a Bright.” “Bright” was a well intentioned idea to rebrand atheists, but it is so condescending of anyone who isn’t….a….bright?
Now, Sanstheist has a couple of things to recommend it. It’s easy to say. Sans means “without” as opposed to “a” which CAN mean without, but is usually used to mean “Not” as in amoral, or apolitical.
Yes, sanstheist. Not pantheist. Got anything better? Let me hear it.
Beyond Belief 
I’m fine with atheist, whether that means “without” theism, or “not” theistic.I also like the brights reference to holding a naturalistic world view — unfortunately “naturalist” is already ripe with other meanings.
Sure… as long as it is taken to mean “without” or “not”…What if it means “lacking” as in amoral? This implies that those without theism LACK something essential, no?
Oh, everybody’s always looking for a new euphemism devoid of the old stigmas. It never works. Those stigmas will be back to haunt the new term. I’ll just stick with “atheist.”
Yeah, but it’s THREE syllables! That’s what was wrong with the word “a-the-ist” in the first place, right? Too many syllables for lazy people to pronounce? That’s why sweet “William” gets shortened to big bad “Bill”, eh?
Uh… I did ask if you had anything BETTER.If you don’t care, or like what we have, or… anything other than have something to offer that you think might be better, please just click on by.