Yesterday President Obama welcomed “Non-Believers” for inclusion. I like this phrase. Atheist and Agnostics have had an ongoing discussion on what to call ourselves. “Brights” has not caught on and Secular Humanist seems more of a philosophical postion than a reference to our stand on God and religion. Non-Believer seems less confrontational and does not carry the baggage that Atheist does. I could see saying “I’m a Non-Believer” in a casual discussion without generating the reaction that “I am an Atheist” gathers. Plus it has the implied approval of our new President.
What do my fellow Non-Believers say?

I too like the phrase ‘non-believer’. It has an easygoing tone to it, almost like ‘nonpartisan’. And it sure beats all heck out of ‘infidel’.

Yes, I use it in preference to atheist since it hasn’t yet been successfully demonized by the Christian Right.

edhopper - 21 January 2009 08:13 AM

Yesterday President Obama welcomed “Non-Believers” for inclusion. I like this phrase. Atheist and Agnostics have had an ongoing discussion on what to call ourselves. “Brights” has not caught on and Secular Humanist seems more of a philosophical postion than a reference to our stand on God and religion. Non-Believer seems less confrontational and does not carry the baggage that Atheist does. I could see saying “I’m a Non-Believer” in a casual discussion without generating the reaction that “I am an Atheist” gathers. Plus it has the implied approval of our new President.
What do my fellow Non-Believers say?

I like it. And I was pleased that Obama set a place for us at that particular table along with the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

I was glad he said that too.  It was good, even if others didn’t like that he included non-believers.  I think, IF the religious were to sit down and just talk to everyone, they may find we all have more in common than not in common.

Thanks for the positive response.
I am posting a link to another board where I started a similar discussion.
Is it me or do the responders just not get my point?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=195175&mesg_id=195175

I like Freethinker and Humanist too, but not every atheist is necessarily a humanist, so instead of going down the list of non-believers, in which case one might as well go down the list of Xians etc, I think the word non-believers works best.  Non-theists would have worked too.  Thing is, the word atheist has been used in derogatory manners in parts of the U.S.- ie Bible Belt, so it carries baggage with it, sometimes very insulting baggage.

I like to yell I’m an atheist infidel devil worshiper in casual conversations. Then continue the conversation as though nothing has happened. 

edhopper - 21 January 2009 08:13 AM

Yesterday President Obama welcomed “Non-Believers” for inclusion. I like this phrase. Atheist and Agnostics have had an ongoing discussion on what to call ourselves. “Brights” has not caught on and Secular Humanist seems more of a philosophical postion than a reference to our stand on God and religion. Non-Believer seems less confrontational and does not carry the baggage that Atheist does. I could see saying “I’m a Non-Believer” in a casual discussion without generating the reaction that “I am an Atheist” gathers. Plus it has the implied approval of our new President.
What do my fellow Non-Believers say?

my wife and I say we are unbeliefable.

danlhinz - 21 January 2009 03:25 PM

I like to yell I’m an atheist infidel devil worshiper in casual conversations. Then continue the conversation as though nothing has happened. 

When the Jeebus People come to my door evangelizing on Sundays (a regular occurence out here in Red State America), I do one of two things:

1. “Sorry, no. We’re Druids.”

2. “Hey honey? Can you release the hounds?”

Both work just fine.

A friend of mine had an interesting “conversation” with her cat in front of JWs.  He responded to her as if he understood every word she said. They were amazed how she did that and asked her how.  She said, “He’s my familiar.”  They ran and never bothered her or her family again.    She says she’s is a Bast worshipper, but she just LOVED how they ran with so much superstition.  I thought it was funny too, esp with how she told the story.

I always said, “non-theist”, but I like Dan’s comment.  From now on I’m going to say I’m and infidel.  Anything to stimulate boring people. 

Many years ago when my wife had a miscarriage and was in the (Catholic) hospital, she had to put down her religion, but didn’t want to say atheist or agnostic.  I suggested “eclectic” and it worked.

Occam

edhopper - 21 January 2009 08:13 AM

Yesterday President Obama welcomed “Non-Believers” for inclusion. I like this phrase. Atheist and Agnostics have had an ongoing discussion on what to call ourselves. “Brights” has not caught on and Secular Humanist seems more of a philosophical postion than a reference to our stand on God and religion. Non-Believer seems less confrontational and does not carry the baggage that Atheist does. I could see saying “I’m a Non-Believer” in a casual discussion without generating the reaction that “I am an Atheist” gathers. Plus it has the implied approval of our new President.
What do my fellow Non-Believers say?

Now that would be good. It sounds better than the dogmatic, discussion provoking “I am an Atheist” description.

Hmmmm….should we then welcome the ID wackos into serious science discussions as ‘non-believers’ ?

I guess it’s a workable word, and better than a lot of terms which have become somewhat derogatory.

It just makes me a wee bit uncomfortable as I don’t like labels very much. But it’ll do for now.

I was very pleased, and surprised, with his inclusion of us in his address. I don’t care what he calls us, so long as we finally get acknowledged as existing.

Personally, though, I prefer atheist when I want to give a bit of a shock, when I don’t, I stick with “I am a nonbeliever and farther left that your right-winged brain can fathom”.

omnibus09 - 26 March 2009 10:52 AM

Hmmmm….should we then welcome the ID wackos into serious science discussions as ‘non-believers’ ?

I guess it’s a workable word, and better than a lot of terms which have become somewhat derogatory.

It just makes me a wee bit uncomfortable as I don’t like labels very much. But it’ll do for now.

Science is a venue of facts. There is no belief or non-belief. It is a question of what theory the evidence supports.
Most believers will tell you they accept the existence of God on faith. We non-believers simply don’t have this belief.
So, no the ID wackos are not non-believers. They are people who stand against the overwhelming evidence of evolution.