Many of these discussions turn into vitriol because of the use of labels. I think Sam Harris and Jonathan Miller may be right in stating that in attempting to define one's beliefs or ideas through the use of labels is useless. If I don't eat potatoes, can I logically label myself as a "non-potato eater"? Each label has to be defined by not only the person who uses it on others as a weapon but by the person upon whom it is used.

A lot of confusion is brought about by the assumptions that the label engenders by the one using it. Some of these terms such as "atheist" or "communist" or "terrorist" are loaded terms that are used to beat others over the head. Then the dialogue collapses.

Owning a label requires the responsibility of those who use it to carefully articulate their position so that they can be understood. Often, though, the label just gets in the way.

As to the issue of smoking and its moral implications, tobacco is a legalized drug which creates addicts. (Some attitudes about religion can do this as well.) I see smoking as a sickness which unfortunately affects others badly rather than just the smoker. I see it essentially as an anti-social behavior but would not want to characterize it as being a moral problem.

Susan, my anger, which I've come to understand is based on my environment. I live in the Southern US and there are a lot of evangelicals, here, who are stifling the Separation in the US Constitution. I now see that their approach is a form of addiction. It has nothing to do with a search for meaning or truth. I have found that generally people in the Northern US or in Europe have a much more wholesome view about the nature of religion. Some accept it as a personal belief that informs their behavior and others like me don't. If I see this fundamentalist view of religion as an addiction, I can understand it better and not paint everyone with a religious belief system as an addict. The key to understanding the reactionary nature of some who are anti-theist is that they are fighting their own addiction to anger and self-righteousness.   It boils down to "the Crips and the Bloods".
It is a dangerous tribal mentality that puts humankind into wars.

I see that the solution is always dialogue and understanding. I am open to many different ideas that people have and I can even understand them without having to go along.
One of the big problems that anti-religionists have is the notion of "enabling". The broad stroke is that all religionists are enabling fundamentalism. I don't think this is true whereas I once did. I think that in the final analysis, it's what people do with their lives that is more important than what they profess to believe on any soapbox.

Frank Hamilton