The pompous statement: “Language is to philosophy as breath is to human life.” serves little purpose than to show that only you possess the gift of language to decipher cryptic branches of life, yet fail to see it is not only philosophy that engages in language. Language is also the breath for common bloggers such as myself who use epistemological practicum off campus to indicate a serious personal study in the pragmatism of ideas and their embodied applications. Agnostics who are not decisively convinced that ultimate truth is unknowable, might very well engage in pursuing the manner by which one arrives at absolute truth or total denial. Since the poetic use of the term offends you, then I apologize to the monopolists of the education department at universities that claim territorial rights. However, you should apologize for misreading my point that an agnostic could conceivably engage himself — not the contrary — in attempting to understand opposing views.

As for imputing a double negative, I should have to question your reading ability on subtleties of emphasis. “Not to say is the clause with its antecedent of the previous paragraph that grants honest curiosity to the agnostic straddling the fence. Therefore, the atheist as well is not denied the same privilege of persuasion philosophically as granted the tolerant, understanding believer. Moreover, you seem to have, in addition to counterpunching, a hidden agenda in defense of your own wild precepts by babbling pretenses of my intent, which is simply to give balanced probing into the nature of the three paths. Still, you should at least allow the atheist — not a nihilist — to expect disciples who sincerely accept the idea of a non-divine universe.

I refer you to Webster’ Collegiate Dictionary: the fifth meaning of philosopher “a person who is sensibly calm or rational under trying circumstances” you might want to indulge. As for the divine in philosophy, you are flat out wrong. It means the love of wisdom, and rational investigation of views and theories pertaining to the principles of being and knowledge.

Atheists indeed are unique in character because they run counter to most other selves whose consciousness triggers some semblance of a sense of divinity. Thus an atheist is a part of a small minority of colleagues. Unless he has a strong rationale for thinking as he does, he is better off staying in the closet rather than to proclaim other thinkers are wrong; for he himself cannot deny the sense of otherness within himself even though he looks to it as a void. [And this statement does not reflect someone who is “afraid and not intellectual enough.”] Atheists logically can no more deny the existence of God than one of faith can confidently assert He exists except that the believer can fall back on faith as his support. The atheist, unless he is as emotional as some of faith, has to rely on reason that takes him to the conclusion that there is but non-Being and even then he has to grapple with admission of the concept of Being — thus, the soft-shoe. Your idea of an atheist is that of a raving lunatic — as is your epistle of criticism — who is a nihilistic and mad iconoclast who sees no beauty in, say, the giant Christmas tree at Rockefeller Plaza and insists on getting to his children early lest they start believing in Santa Claus. A rational atheist is one who accepts the reality of his environment and reluctantly respects the beliefs of others, just as a rational person of faith accepts the hard reality of non-believers and reluctantly respects that view.

I do not profess that the universe is empty of meaning but do ascribe it to an atheist as a psychological feedback of a sense of abandonment and loneliness within him, though he rises to the occasion by his innate human spirit. As for “apples and oranges,” let us say that apples are in common with faith of any kind; whereas, oranges are the fruit of non-belief and non-being — there is no bridge to understanding here but for the agnostic in his “practicum” to attempt to venture over it.

I do not deny the atheist to criticize society, but he cannot expect a society overwhelmingly religious to tear down their mosques, temples and cathedrals because they are offensive to a tiny minority. Nor should it be deprived of its celebratory symbols and holidays that do not run counter to the Constitution — as you have unreasonably offended my self-constitution. The Texas court that removed the officious monument did so by constitutional law, and all were believers.

I forgive you for having irrationally attacked the very purpose of my intention to bring reason into the discussion of difficult concepts.