An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

"Godless"?

I guess the notion that "heathen" has been out of common use for a while, allows for easier re-definition. i.e. any connotations it may have/have had are not so fresh in the psyche.Because atheist is still very much in use and has the supposed connotations freshly in tow, any use of it carries those connotations.

it does have kind of a "we know best" feel to it like whoever is saying it is looking down their nose as they say it.Reminds me of the south park episode where all the Prius drivers love the smell of their own farts...

I never said that. in fact the opposite was being proposed.the author of the original article talked about "reclaiming" the word, in the same way other words with negative connotations have been reclaimed and used by the people who they were meant to describe.

Look, It's pretty clear from the article in question what the intent was.
read it again. I'm getting tired of re-explaining it.You seem to have assumed that this is all somehow my idea or that I am an apologist for it. This is not the case. I am not the author of the article.Like I said, I posted it as a discussion point, not to be held to task for its contents.Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Do you understand the intent of the author when he talks about finding an alternative title?
Do you understand what he means when he talks about "Reclaiming" a word in the same way the originally derogatory words 'Gay' or 'Methodist' or 'Quaker' were reclaimed by the people they describe?Do you understand that the meanings of words can and do change over time depending on their use? eg "Gay" The only issue you seem to have is the use of the word heathen, this is a minor part of the article as presented, yet you seem hung up on it.anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss the Original article.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I provided a summary in bullet points, (so as not to post a bare link as per forum guidelines), including what I thought was the main thrust of the article,
(the "re-naming" as someone mentioned above (Rahvin maybe?) being a semantic triviality.)