- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Yeah, because it is not like scientific principles led to the technology with which you condemn both religion and science in favour of nicey-nicey.
Look, we all condemn guys like Lieberman or Kleinman, the "Sensible Liberals." Well the religious left or new Agnostics are no different to those guys.
On the one hand you have the religious right frequently so far as to threaten our lives, and on the other hand you have us "Foaming at the mouth" atheist fundementalists daring to talk back and back up our cases with facts.
And right in the middle you have the "Sensible liberal" papsmear agnostics saying that while they detest the violence of the religious right, when us atheists who dare to stand up to it in less than complimentary terms? Well we leave you ashamed.
I have no problem with honest agnostics be they theist or atheist, those whose position is honestly founded in "I don't know" or even "I don't give enough of a shit to argue to the subject" but when agnosticism amounts to nothing more than self-righteously proclaiming "a curse on both your houses"? That I have problems with.
(Oh and note: Atheism and agnosticism aren't even describing the same thing, you can have agnostic theists and gnostic atheists. It works as follows in terms of the Christian God:
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe in God.
Gnostic atheist: There is no God.
Agnostic theist: I believe God is likely.
Gnostic theist: God exists.)
