Aha! Don't know why I couldn't link to it before. Here is the Taylor Kessinger piece that got him in a bit of trouble:

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists

Too bad the comments posted in the paper weren't tacked on to the electronic article, as it was satisfying to read the responses. I swear, as reasonable as this bum sounds towards Christians in this article, he wrote several insulting comments about them during my time at the UA, including one targeting Mormons (satire, but in bad taste).

So I hear ya on that topic. Yes, atheist is broader term than I was/am giving credit. But at least know this very article was in the back of my mind as I composed my earlier message, and I simply chose to focus more on the scientific atheists without careful phrasing.

So perhaps you are correct that the whole topic could be defined as a matter of semantics. But...forget it, I just decided to delete my silly paragraph showing that you can use scientific evidence to 'know' with reasonable certainty that the TMNT aren't real. I won't bore you, since I'm sure you know that such testing can be shown. Let's just cut to the chase. I suppose that in a philosophical sense, Leo can claim to 'know' that God is not real. But I am curious as to his source of knowledge. I can claim to know that 9/11 was an inside job and have far more evidence than he (I don't accept the Truther philosophy at all, incidentally). To what can he point in order to claim this knowledge? Frankly, I don't care if he or anyone says he knows God is false, except that I feel those who really claim to 'know' such things are usually the very offended. But as you said, atheist ~ agnostic for those who really take the time to think it through. The difference in labels is only slight in most cases. TV's Frink is, after all, only a weak atheist ;)