Well, Hawk, this, by the grace of God, has turned into a discussion of atheism for a minute or two. All you managed to do, apart from giving me a list of things you are not, was inform me that you are a human being. Informative though this is, in this particular discussion I'm more interested in your stance on matters God-and-religion. Thanks for telling me anyway. I'm not a contra-bassoonist. Just thought I'd mention it. I don't like being labelled either, as life has so many shades, but I'm happy to be called an atheist, even though the actual word itself is inappropriate. It isn't hard to allow myself this label because atheism is actually a very simple thing. If you think about it, there really can't be many shades of atheism. Whether I'm silent about it or loud about it doesn't alter the fact that I'm "it." Non-atheists such as yourself and that Jack fellow who's gone all quiet (and how I love to turn the tables with that expression "non-atheist") are fond of telling me that I can't possibly speak for all atheists. In the sense that there are atheists who'd wish I'd just belt up, you're probably right, but on the substantive issue of what atheism is I reckon we're all the same. The only atheists I'd ever slightly part company from would be those who express total certainty about God's non-existence or who demand proof of his existence. All I ask for is evidence. Does this make me a lily-livered, insurance-seeking agnostic? No, it doesn't, because the one thing I am certain of is that I'm not going to get that evidence.