Atheist or Agnostic?

It's all semantics. I've gone on record saying that I think agnosticism is reasonable and respectable, but real atheism is a mental disorder. I've also gone on record saying that I think Donald Pennington is sane and usually worth reading...even in this article about his way of being an atheist:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8349349/my_conversion_to_atheism_why_i_gave.html?cat=34

Sounds to me more like what I'd call an agnostic position that leans toward disbelief (as opposed to the agnostic positions of writers who leaned toward belief, like Scott Peck, C.S. Lewis, and Madeleine L'Engle).

The kind of dogmatic atheism that I think we should recognize as a mental disorder is the kind where someone really, deep down, believes that there is a God, and that that God is angry at him or her. This deep belief causes a superficial reaction of compulsive disbelief, with a corresponding compulsive, even convulsive, need to lash and bash whenever anyone expresses any kind of belief.

If the friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend who sent me the e-mail had sent me a link to the source, I could here direct you to an article about deranged atheists objecting to the use of cross-shaped markers on Christian servicemen's graves.

I respect agnostics' right to share their doubts, disbeliefs, and perception of some religious practices as ridiculous. I just don't understand why any reasonable agnostic would want to be, or even tolerate being, identified with the pathological atheists.

(Postscript: When this link and comment were first posted on Weebly, someone offered a reason for these agnostics' behavior. "Because they've seen how much harm some people's sick, twisted versions of religion have done to people?" I still want to challenge agnostics, including Donald Pennington, to think a little further through their beliefs. Sick, twisted atheism is as harmful as sick, twisted religion.)