Add new comment

I'm so glad you replied to this comment - thank you.  My point was not to ascribe malice to the author of the blog entry nor to criticize the entry's larger point - I apologize if it appeared that way.  Finding alternatives to the term is not my intent - my point is that non-believer is a vague, broad-brush term which is not descriptive of the people for which it is used (nor, for that matter, does it describe well its suggested opposite, believers - see the 'religious-but-not-spiritual' category).

My view is that people who are non-religious or atheist or spiritual-but-not-religious fall on the same spectrum (or plane) as people who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist and are not, in my view, a separate category as the term suggests.  We all have a belief system, whether or not it is a religion and whether or not we've made a conscious choice about it.  Though it is a very human thing to do, I don't think we need to define people by what they aren't.  What do we really mean when we describe people as 'believers' anyways?  If we're purely talking about a belief in God (which I think, most of the time, we are), that is a gross oversimplification that washes out an awful lot of what goes into one's belief system (such as moral views, contemplative practice, or devotional ritual).  To be labelled 'religious' (i.e. a believer) does one have to believe in a god?  I'm actually fairly religious, but I believe there is no god (I am a practicing Buddhist - Buddhism has no god).  So where does that leave people like me?