Atheism is a belief

1. You are equivocating not believing with rejecting: They are not the same. As I said earlier, there is a spectrum of atheism. The atheist that believes and claims that there is no God or are no gods is at the extreme end of the spectrum. Most atheists, including me, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and nearly every atheist you will find championing social media, are at the opposite end of the spectrum. The agnostic-atheist claims that he or she has no knowledge of a God or gods, and some even claim that knowledge of a God or gods cannot be known. This is a claim on the agnostic's knowledge, hence agnostic. The second part of the word--atheist-- comes from the stance that they take on belief. Some agnostics will say, "There is no evidence for a God, but I am going to believe in one anyway for pragmatic purposes." Although this is a rare case, agnosticism is not something that is exclusive to non-belief, and atheism is not something exclusive to and should be equivocated with rejection of a God or gods. 2 and 3. You are incorrect on both points. Agnosticism mixes with atheism, and agnosticism mixes with theism as well. Your definitions are flawed and were clearly picked for the purposes of the argument. As to avoid bias, I am going to go with the first definition I can find, and that so happens to be at dictionary.com for each of these definitions. Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Theism: the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation These definitions, chosen using unbiased methods, fit the parameters I have set out perfectly. The agnostic's claim is that of knowledge, hence unknown and unknowable. Although I hold contention with the assertion that all agnostics claim that the existence of a God or gods is unknowable, the focus is still on the fact that agnostics are making a claim on their state of knowledge. The definitions of theism and an atheist fit perfectly as well. They make the claim on belief. As for your statements, they are both correct, but you are drawing the incorrect conclusion. You are pretending that "I don't believe that God exists" is the same as "I reject the idea of God existing." The agnostic-atheist is saying the former, and he or she is also saying, "I am completely willing to be convinced if evidence is provided one way or the other, but no evidence exists." You may also be inclined to ask how one "assumes" that God does not exist based on lack of knowledge. Most atheists do not. Most atheists simply do not believe in a God, and that follows naturally from there being no evidence. Just as most rational-minded people admit that there is a chance that an animal resembling Cthulhu could exist on some distant planet in some distant galaxy but do not believe in it until evidence is provided, most atheists acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a Deity but do not believe in Him/Her/It until evidence is provided. It is the default position to lack belief and yet not reject. This is the position of the agnostic-atheist. 4. I enjoy the hospitality and commend you on your respect, but that is not what I was addressing in my argument. I was saying that you are basing your argument off of what pragmatic assertions atheists make. I am going to pragmatically live my life as if there is no God or are no gods; however, I am going to continue asserting that I do not know for sure. When I say that organized religion has no part in today's society, that is not an argument for or against atheism; it is an argument that the infrastructure that provides people with religion being flawed. A theist can make this argument; an atheist can make this argument. It does not matter what atheists live their lives like pragmatically because humans will make things into little packages for easy consumption. The same is true of theists. I think you would agree that most Christian men agree that looking at a woman lustfully is wrong, yet many do not avidly restrain themselves from doing so. This is because pragmatically, the Christian man is saying, "I know that I am a terrible person, but my human desires are too difficult to overcome, especially when I believe that I am going to be saved either way," even though he believes that it would be the best course of action for him to avidly restrain himself. I could now make the argument that all Christian men who do this believe that it is okay to look at women lustfully. Of course, this is not true because pragmatic assertions do not line up with deeply thought out beliefs, and the beliefs should be the only point of discussion in a debate centered around beliefs.