to all members who classify themselves as "godless"

[Asmodean]

i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

[curiosityandthecat]

i know everyone hates labels, but i like em. they help other people get a grip on who you are and what you are all about. if i go up to you and say have "you met bill?" you would say no or which one. but if i go and say "do you know bill the atheist?" you know exactly who i'm talking about. labels are good for a sense of self. i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

It's true; labels (and stereotypes) are so deeply ingrained in our genetic survival kit that it's hard for us to imagine daily life without it. But, labeling oneself can be very bad for the sense of self, as well, if a person is dishonest about it. I could say that I'm curiosityandthecat, the photographer, librarian, student, and leave it at that. I could also say that I'm curiositythecat, law-breaker, bigot, womanizer, if I attach labels to myself that I may have fit, even at just one moment, and then only slightly. That's the problem with labels: they don't take into account degree. Jean Valjean, Robin Hood, Prometheus, Willie Loman and Bonnie and Clyde can all be labeled thieves.

I'm okay with descriptions rather than labels. Descriptions inform you about what a person is doing or choosing to do at a certain point in time and nothing more; labels tell you what that person is likely to do (either in reality or in the mind of the labeler). You wouldn't label a fisherman as a tailor, as it would drastically call into question the validity of his resume. However, you could describe the fisherman as someone who enjoys tailoring his own clothing without any confusion or questions.

[quizlixx]

i know everyone hates labels, but i like em. they help other people get a grip on who you are and what you are all about. if i go up to you and say have "you met bill?" you would say no or which one. but if i go and say "do you know bill the atheist?" you know exactly who i'm talking about. labels are good for a sense of self. i am for labeling yourself, just don't let others label you. i am deadhead, the guitarist, atheist, student.

It's true; labels (and stereotypes) are so deeply ingrained in our genetic survival kit that it's hard for us to imagine daily life without it. But, labeling oneself can be very bad for the sense of self, as well, if a person is dishonest about it. I could say that I'm curiosityandthecat, the photographer, librarian, student, and leave it at that. I could also say that I'm curiositythecat, law-breaker, bigot, womanizer, if I attach labels to myself that I may have fit, even at just one moment, and then only slightly. That's the problem with labels: they don't take into account degree. Jean Valjean, Robin Hood, Prometheus, Willie Loman and Bonnie and Clyde can all be labeled thieves.

I'm okay with descriptions rather than labels. Descriptions inform you about what a person is doing or choosing to do at a certain point in time and nothing more; labels tell you what that person is likely to do (either in reality or in the mind of the labeler). You wouldn't label a fisherman as a tailor, as it would drastically call into question the validity of his resume. However, you could describe the fisherman as someone who enjoys tailoring his own clothing without any confusion or questions.

i see your point , and i agree with it. i guess i was speaking more of descriptions than labels

[afreethinker30]

Maybe a term like non-spiritual could be a better way to desrcibe oneself?  I think it sounds alittle more friendly and it covers alot more to.

[Msblue]

Maybe a term like non-spiritual could be a better way to desrcibe oneself?  I think it sounds alittle more friendly and it covers alot more to.

I'm "not religious" works for me.  Atheist is fine online but, in person some people react to the word Atheist like it means you eat kittens for breakfast.

[curiosityandthecat]

I'm "not religious" works for me.  Atheist is fine online but, in person some people react to the word Atheist like it means you eat kittens for breakfast.

Kittens: It's Not Just for Atheists Anymore!

[Faithless]

I've always preferred atheist.  Short, sweet, and to the point.  Except that when you tell some people you're an atheist (insert god-fearing Southern Baptist relatives here), they freak out and practically run for the hills.  So depending on who I'm talking to, I'll just say I'm not a believer, or if they ask what church I go to, I just say, "I don't."  Surprisingly, I've had very few people ask me why I don't.

[Jolly Sapper]

Non-religious works for me.  

If questioned about a lack of "god belief" I just go into a rant about how organized religion is the eeebbbiiillll that should be burned.  I'm usually met by wide eyed, blank stares and slight nods with some mumbling before the person who asked me what I believe in decides to walk away.

[monkeyNutBread]

Atheist would be fine, except that it definitely has a dark connotation, especially to theists. If only I had the power to change the connotation of words... oh what a wonderful power! I would be able to call my friend James the N-Word with no fear or regret!  

[ewomack]

I like "Hell-bound whore."

[Tom62]

Atheist is a fine word for me. If theists have problems with it then it is their problem, not mine.

[rlrose328]

Ed:  LOVE that description... can I borrow it?  

[dodgecity]

I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

[curiosityandthecat]

I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

Profound, indeed! I like Sam Harris. However, it felt to me as if he was being a bit too blunt and effusive in The End of Faith. I mean, a whole chapter titled "The Problem With Islam"? Come on. I know we non-believers all feel rather frustrated and amazed at the (perceived) stupidity of believers, but casting aspersions get us nowhere. We're talking about a group of people who still believe in a patriarchal Santa Claus; we must tread lightly or be victims of playground retaliation.

[afreethinker30]

I love how Sam Harris approaches the issue in Letter to a Christian Nation:

Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, “atheist” is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non astrologer” or a “non-alchemist”. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

How very profound!

Profound, indeed! I like Sam Harris. However, it felt to me as if he was being a bit too blunt and effusive in The End of Faith. I mean, a whole chapter titled "The Problem With Islam"? Come on. I know we non-believers all feel rather frustrated and amazed at the (perceived) stupidity of believers, but casting aspersions get us nowhere. We're talking about a group of people who still believe in a patriarchal Santa Claus; we must tread lightly or be victims of playground retaliation.

True we know bluntness really doesn't do anything.All it does is seem to upset people more,making them work for their cause harder.