I’ve heard that distinction as well, but it always struck me as coming from a religious position and working backwards, as if there is something inherently special about belief in a god or gods separate from belief or disbelief in other things that lack evidence.

I don’t have to explain that I’m gnostic in my disbelief of vampires even though if a vampire was biting on my neck I’d believe in them. If I saw a sleigh pulled by reindeer flying through the sky, I’d believe in Santa, but absent any evidence and lots of reasons to believe Santa is impossible as an all-knowing, seemingly time-stopping magical being, I don’t think we need a qualifier like “gnostic” or “agnostic” when discussing disbelief in Santa, because it is “impossible to know.”

Gnostic and Agnostic seems like gotcha terminology for religious folk that capitalize on the more scientific view that if there is proof/evidence something exists, I will believe in it, but until then I will use reason to believe it does not to suggest there is a class of atheists that seems open to the idea of religion and another that doesn’t. In reality, if you’re starting from the atheist side, it’s more:

“I am certain gods do not exist in the same way I am certain vampires and Santa Claus don’t exist, in that unless and until reliable evidence is available to suggest they do there is no reason to believe in them. But as with any of my beliefs, if reliable evidence or proof is offered I’m willing to reconsider my position.”

I think the idea is people coming from a grocery store where all the fruit and vegetables were centralized in a “produce” section and then going to a Farmers’ Market and complaining that multiple stalls sell tomatoes and having to visit all of them to go tomato shopping.

At least that’s what I’m getting from these comments. I’m new here too, and getting used to it, but I get a Farmers’ Market vibe.

So I’m pretty far left (for an American), but I think there is a nuance that I’ve had explained at me by some non-mouth-frothing Republican types I’ve worked with.

For them, there is a difference between choosing to be part of community, helping other people, and sharing what they have, and being forced to do those things (via taxes). It always struck me as… exclusionary. It means that they can help their literal neighbor and ignore the people on the other side of town (or the other side of the country).

So it may feel like it’s leftist/communist/etc, but it’s just an extension of “fuck you, I got mine” to “fuck everyone else, me and mine got ours, and only on my terms.”

To pay for the war which we started and we were defended. And continued to need defense even after the war.

I’m happy the Revolutionary War happened, but the more I read of it the more I realize we (Americans) were on the wrong side of it.

If I say 'I’m not racist" they respond “well it doesn’t matter if you’re racist or not, if you aren’t anti-racist you’re perpetuating white supremacy.”

So maybe I’m just misinterpreting your idea of what “anti-racist” means, but it sounds like a business owner saying “I don’t actively discriminate against people based on race, but they’re saying if I don’t support measures so other people can’t discriminate against people based on race, I’m perpetuating white supremacy.” That seems a pretty reasonable stance.

Being otherwise neutral to an established system is perpetuating it, even if you don’t participate in it yourself. I’m not sure what’s confusing about that. Again, unless I’m misunderstanding your interpretation of “anti-racist.”

I disagree. Religion is saying what you are doing is right because it comes from your religion.

I think you’re taking an… absolutist view of right-and-wrong, whereas the idea of “right” for religious people is exclusively through the lense of their religion.

Murdering a child to you might be objectively bad, and seeing a religious person do it (or support it) might look like someone doing evil, knowing it’s evil, because they were told to do so. But if their god (or religious leader expressing the will of their god) told them to do it, it is right to do it, and the only right thing to do is what is told (plenty of examples of this playing out in religious texts).

I really enjoyed the concept and story of In Time, which apparently has a 37% tomato meter and 51% audience score. That was probably the first less than 60% one I saw I particularly liked.

Edit: I take it back, I choose Elysium. It has a 59% audience meter and I frickin LOVE that movie, all the way down to the villain being super crazy and virtually unintelligible.

I also really liked Equilibrium.

I lived Hellboy, and 83% of people can suck it.

And Constantine… I could watch that movie monthly for the foreseeable future and be happy.

I’ve seen that link before without realizing it was from a movie, not an actual commercial. I can’t believe they put that in a movie.