Reply #32: Obviously there are reasons for how/why something is perceived

[ironbark]

The critical thinking tricky bit is to be able to provide evidence that backs the ‘reasons’ and affirms the ‘perception’.

“It {if?} you say you are an agnostic you will get a much different reaction than saying you are an atheist.”

That is just a re statement of your prior “people identify as agnostic because they think it is the "nicer" {socially acceptable} option”
It has been questioned and answered and you ignore both…perhaps contributing to why people might react differently?

“And it has nothing to do with your little grudge with people on here.”

As previously advised- The critical thinking tricky bit is to be able to provide evidence that backs the ‘reasons’ and affirms the ‘perception’.
You think in terms of “grudge” and vendetta, you imagine others/groups to be “evil”…you project your pov/beliefs onto me because you cannot conceptualise anyone operating from motives/principles other than your own.
I cannot curb or stop you from doing so…I can only continue to point out your assumptions/projections are baseless, without evidence….and all yours.

“Based on discussions I have had with my fellow evil atheists…”

Your designation. Past and present. All yours.

“…we rarely talk about our atheism in public much less engage people like we do on here.”

That sounds like a safe way to avoid the natural consequences of aberrant behaviour ;-)

“Don't start your little exact quotation game with me.”

You mean requesting substantiation so that a stated pov is not blatantly falsified?
Why would I bother? You have already clearly demonstrated that you think substantiation is a “game” and that falsification is your entitlement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x255244#255318

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x255244#255327

“You didn't use the words "mutually exclusive" but you are clearly making it binary. "choosing the former instead of either of the latter?" That clearly means in your opinion that they are mutually exclusive.”

An impeccably illogical extrapolation.
"choosing the former instead of either of the latter?" is >three choices< and that aint “binary”. Beyond that, having chosen, the options remain open and nothing is excluded.
But once more the issue gets bogged down and lost in semantic dead end in pursuit of something I didn’t say…but you projected.
What’s the point?

“Any chance you can show me where my "peers" have said that agnostic is a subset of atheism.”

Oh…..the substantiation “game”?....The one you refuse to play?
Sure, there are three threads with (at least) four individuals declaring that agnosticism must (by definition) be viewed as an aspect, subset and element of atheism…further, that if you are an agnostic you are automatically an atheist.
This has definitional grounds…but is broadly rejected when it comes to peoples self identification and the evolution in understanding of the terms.

You want links?....See the links above and have a think about it ;-)