| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Atheist "identity"
I agree (but only partially). We're getting back into the concept of rationalist taboo again, and, once again, I have to say it depends on the context. Sometimes there are terms that are so loaded it's easier to just avoid them altogether.
I don't know what we are doing. I'm just avoiding work. Loaded terms are intended to be loaded terms. But that doesn't apply to things like "religion" "god", "atheist" which are all useful terms that can be quickly and fairly precisely defined at the beginning of a conversation.
But mostly I don't care other than reading what sounds like the start of a very long conversation for ADK, dealing with someone who doesn't care what ADK has to say, only what that someone himself wants to think.
Those conversations will not be improved by avoiding or using loaded language; avoiding or using precise language - they will only be improved by avoiding using any language and saying "nertz" or making buzzing noises. ;-)