Shared publicly  - 
So, wait, if you actually question things you are less likely to be religious? Strange that.

There is a reason congregations are sometimes referred to as "flocks" - Bleat!
Holly “Sparkey” Davis's profile photoJohn Lewis's profile photoAkshay Bist (elssar)'s profile photo
You know, it's funny, but for a very long time I was under the impression that when one separated "the sheep from the goats" it was the goats one was wanting!
... to be honest, I am surprised that people who are continually compared to sheep don't feel offended.
(By the way, I'm not anything. I'm not even an atheist. Atheism is too cohesive these days. I'm just miscellaneously secular... also, goats "bleat". Sheep "Bah!")
Well, if I'm being completely honest, it's actually an important skill to go along with the crowd, otherwise you can end up on the fringes of society for your beliefs. In the wrong place it could still mean death, even.

I've not come across that saying before. Personally I would prefer the sheep, they have a better temperament and won't eat everything in your house. And I could also make a feta like cheese with them. :)

According to Merriam Webster, et al, bleat refers to sheep, goats and calves so there! ;),or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c9c0790c179d44b7&biw=1535&bih=814

I like cohesion, we should be sticking together, us atheists. United we stand, divided we epic-fail.
Merriam Webster? Pah, I say. Pah. ... but good call.

Look at my profile picture... do you really think I'm skilled at fitting in? But yes, it is an important skill. I know it very well... this being made far clearer by my lack of ability. But still, one can get along in life being a weirdo. Fitting in isn't paramount.

But what's the fun of an animal with no perversity? It's what makes life interesting!

I tell you, I am not an atheist! I used to say I was an atheist, but then all this crap with what's-his-name started up in the USA and there's starting to be this evangelical flavour about the place... it feels a bit too much like religion for me. I forsake any standardised spiritual belief! Anyway, I'm kind of sentimental about polytheism. I don't really believe it, but it's cute and worth enjoying the idea of.
No, I struggle with "fitting in" also, luckily we live in countries which are somewhat tolerant of such things.

Ask a Kiwi or a taffy. ;)

How about "humanist" i.e. that you believe in people? Old Dawkins has used that term for himself the odd time, as well as agnostic of course.
I don't believe in people any more than I believe in rocks or birds or moss or other things. Think of it from a moss's point of view, for example. People are just another animal... and, more relevantly, not even one which eats moss. People are part of a greater whole. "Humanist" seems a bit narrow to me. It feels like you'd be missing out on something. As a human being, I am lucky enough to possess more power over my surrounds than, say, a fish, but that doesn't mean I'm inherently better than a fish. That said, though, I'm not vegetarian. I just eat with respect. :D

Wait, you're telling me that even Dawkins isn't sure if there are gods or not? That's what agnostics are, aren't they? People who aren't sure?
Well, it does focus on "human" values, so maybe a bit exclusionary of the rest of life's flora and fauna.

How about "secular humanist"? Secular humanism is a secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Sounds reasonable to me.

Yep, but what he's saying is you can't be sure, with 100% certainty, one way or the other, which is true. You can't be sure there are/aren't purple, bumpy aliens somewhere either, however I think that's more likely. :)
Not much we can say we 100% believe in, I suspect. People who are black and white about everything lack subtlety and possibly intelligence.
Got any yin or yang there?
+John Lewis My modus operandi is I just go with the conclusion which seems to have the most evidence going for it at the time, and when that changes, I go with it. If they found some good evidence that gods existed, for example, then I'd admit that they probably do.
I think it's called "science".
As for ethics and decision-making, I really think the most important thing is not to have hard-and-fast rules like "stealing is always wrong", "what so-and-so says is always right". That will get you into trouble.
Yes, sweeping generalisations are midleading at best, dangerous at worst.
Add a comment...