http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism
From what I can get out of it is:
Basically he's using "atheist" the way we use "gnostic atheist", but adding in that anyone that claims to be what we term "agnostic atheist" is really a closet agnostic that is too cowardly to step up and be a "real" atheist. Reasonable certainty that dragons don't exist is sufficient to say, "Dragons don't exist". Nobody then throws a fit that "Well, there might be a dragon sleeping in a dark cavern in the remotest jungle of the rainforest, so you can't say that dragons don't exist, so you can't possibly be an adragonist." Only religious privilege lets people get away with using the "You gotta be 100% absolutely super-ultra-megacertain that gods aren't real to call yourself an atheist!!!" argument. Which is what WLC is doing.
What do you get out of it?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
