[MrB]

Didn’t read earlier where he disqualified himself as “agnostic” -

but it seems to me that declaring that you can’t prove the existance or non-existance of God is pretty much the definition of agnostic. “We don’t and can’t know.”

I believe he’s pulling the same crap that all atheists/secular humanists (and MSM journalists) pull -

“WE’RE neutral, the rest of you are religious (ideological) zealots”

[Zionist Conspirator]

but it seems to me that declaring that you can’t prove the existance or non-existance of God is pretty much the definition of agnostic.

It is. So if he has said he is not an agnostic, and then turned around and said he cannot prove that a god or gods do not exist, he is contradicting himself.

I can think of only three explanations:

1)He simply chooses to define his philosophy positively (vis a vis the natural world which we know exists) rather than negatively (via the rejection of a "god or gods" whose existence is accepted "on faith").

2)He's actually one of us trying to make the other side look bad.

3)He's crazy as a bessie bug.