It isn’t a cop out in using atheism as lacking belief. That is what the term means, but it has been framed to have a new meaning. If theists are people with belief in god, than a (not) theists are people without belief.

You have Imuv and Expelled ad banners on the side with “The God who wasn’t there” at the bottom.

Darron: I certainly see where you’re coming from. However, it seems to me to be analogous to some liberals calling themselves progressive due to the term being made so dirty these days. It’s less offensive, more positive-looking, and easier to ‘use’.. but is it cheap abandonment? I suppose I just don’t have a problem with offending people as long as it’s for something somewhat important. It’s worked well so far to get things through peoples’ heads, so I don’t see a reason to jump on the agreeable title bandwagon. :)

I don’t see any ads. Perhaps these Firefox plug-ins are actually working, or I’m blind. Either case works out fine for me. In other news, that movie and the persecution complex make me sad. At least Dawkins’ site has some amusing stories about it.

Sorry about the adverts, but Google generates them by scanning page content. Obviously this site talks about religion a lot, so religious links will appear quite often. I’ve been impressed by the number of atheist related sites advertised though, so it’s not all bad news!

Good paper btw. If asked, I call myself a naturalist rather than an atheist, and explain that a naturalist accepts natural explanations for the world around them, whereas supernaturalists (theists) accept supernatural explanations. This puts me in the default position, naturally. ;-)

I do this because the term “atheist” immediately makes people feel you’re attacking their god (and they take it personally). But when you call yourself a naturalist it puts YOU in the default position and forces the supernaturalists to explain themselves, without the caustic feelings caused by the “atheist” word.

thanks and keep up the good work!