confrontational and offensive? I don't think it makes any more sense to shy away from a plainly accurate "humanist" label because we've stereotyped it as not confrontational enough. Great comment, and I couldn't say it better. How can one reasonably say that Atheism+ is different from Humanism without understanding Humanism? In my life and work here with the Humanists of Rhode Island, where we have made definitive strides in promoting church/state separation, women's rights issues and even steps towards marriage equality, my group has been informed by our Humanist, not simply atheist values. To maintain that Humanists are somehow weaker or less confrontational than atheists is just not true. Anyone who knows anything about the conditions on the ground here in the culture war in Rhode Island knows that. Any "humanist" who does not consider themselves a feminist is not a Humanist. Whereas not all feminists are Humanists, all Humanists are feminists. This is a very important point. Humanism has a set of values that one espouses. It is self selecting. There are no gatekeepers. If someone who dos not value human life and human rights claims to be a Humanist, they are grossly misinformed or lying. Similarly, Humanism is non-theistic and anti-supernatural. Atheism is non-theistic, but there's nothing that says an atheist can't believe in the supernatural. Just ask a Buddhist, who denies the existence of God but still believes in souls and reincarnation. Reason is built into the core values of Humanism, but where is there such a