re: #31 goddamnedfrank

You’re an agnostic if you believe it’s beyond the capacity of your mind to definitively know the answer. Saying agnostic atheist is like saying Judeo Christian, a transparent attempt to pretend a belief is more inclusive than it really is by appending and superseding another label.

Your statement just isn’t true. If you don’t believe in a god, you’re Atheist. It’s really that simple. The two terms are orthogonal.

I don’t get this need to pigeonhole the man according to your own categorical definitions of what these words mean.

Not my own definitions, I’m talking about what words actually mean. If words don’t mean things, we can’t communicate.

Assuming he’s pretending because his expressed understanding doesn’t line up with yours, that’s an interesting assumption to make.

How interesting is it when a smart person tries to obfuscate the meaning of words? Why are you on-board with that?

And if it wasn’t out of hand? I don’t get this line of reasoning, justification by forced contextualization. I’d say there’s nothing wrong with aggressive atheism because it’s an honest expression of personal belief, just like agnosticism. They stand on their own. The idea that either of their legitimacies derives reactionarily from overreach by religion is a new one.

If it weren’t out of hand, Atheists wouldn’t need to push back like we absolutely have to. No one wants to upset their grandmother, but we have to be honest and open about what religion is when it has so much influence in this country.

Do you think LGF would be the same place it is if wingnuts didn’t exist? Same deal with vocal atheists. We’re pushing back against idiocy.