I don’t know if I’d die on this hill but I know if I stood on it, New Atheists (who claim that there is no such thing as New Atheism) would try to “we atheists think” me to death.
Juicy. It’s been a while since I was in a standard agnosticism / atheism theological debate about “what it all means”.
Still, I like this hill. I refer to myself as agnostic, It pisses off new atheists and just gets a roll of the eyes from other religious types. I’ve never been, would never be atheist, as much as they keep trying to put me in their camp. [I’d want me too].
Best reflection of my existing thoughts, I found mirrored in Pigluicci. He *is* atheist, unlike me yet his conclusions, reached from the “other side” than me, are almost the same as mine.
asexuality can be a sexuality and atheism can be a religion. Neither is required to be imo. Rather, it depends upon the person accepting the term.
If one’s asexuality is, for them, akin to a sexuality, then it’s a sexuality.
if one’s atheism is, for them, akin to a religion (broader term), then it is a religion.
Not so much murky just contextual. I think it if had an easy certainty about it, there’d be far less debate around it.