Atheism is a belief

You are claiming that atheism is a belief. Belief requires a claim. If you are admitting that the atheist does not need to make a claim on the existence of a God or gods, then the argument is concluded. You have said that atheism is a belief. A belief requires a claim. I can only infer that the claim you are assuming atheists make is that they reject the idea of a God or gods. As has been clearly demonstrated, this is not true. Atheism is a spectrum in which some reject and some do not. Although some atheistic claims do require belief, atheism as a worldview does not. If you are agreeing that an atheist does not need to reject, or make a claim on, the existence of a God or gods, then this debate is concluded. Also, I would agree that agnostic-atheists disbelieve rather than reject. You have once again provided a colloquial definition rather than a philosophical one. Your definition is used for situations such as when a person stares at something in disbelief, or refusal to believe. A more accurate definition for this situation is Merriam-Webster's: "a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real." The definition you provided warrants rejection, but it is incorrect. Disbelieve does not warrant a claim, and consequently, it does not warrant a belief. As i have stated innumerable times, being in a state of not knowing and disbelieving are not mutually exclusive. most atheists do not believe and admit that they are in a state of not knowing, hence agnostic-atheist. You know this, but you have refused to provide any refutation and continue to state that agnostics and atheists are mutually exclusive. What you are doing is providing a false dilemma. You are assuming that one must either accept with full knowledge, deny with full knowledge, or not make a claim without knowledge. These are false, for there are many positions one can take. Your whole argument up to this point has been based around the idea that any position taken is a belief. This does not work, as it defies logic. You have once again ignored everything I have said and then reposted your original statement. The word agnostic comes from the word gnostic, someone who claims he or she has full knowledge of a subject. This means that both agnostic and gnostic are claims to the knowledge of the subject-- not the belief. Once again, knowing there is no way to tell if a God or gods exist does not exclude one from believing one way or the other. I have never once contradicted myself. What you are doing is assuming that disbelief in something warrants belief, pointing out the fact that atheists lack a belief in God or gods, and claiming victory while hurdling further and further into ignorance. Not believing does not warrant belief. You have never once even made an argument as to why that is; you have assumed this to be true since the very beginning as if it were fact. It is not, and it is a ridiculous stretching of words to try and shift the burden of proof. This is untrue. You have been grouping agnostics, atheists, and theists all into one group of claims made about belief. I have stated numerous times that agnosticism is a claim to the knowledge of the person and the other two are claims to the belief of the person, and you have neither acknowledged nor attempted to disprove the fact. I absolutely did not back up your definitions, and your failure to see how the definitions were different proves your absolute ignorance in the nuance of the wording of the definitions themselves. This completely explains why you have refused to accept that agnosticism is not a claim to a person's belief but his or her knowledge. You have used colloquial and archaic definitions to support your points and acted as if I accepted your definitions in the first place. I provided definitions of my own which I found in an unbiased manner, and you continued to act as though I accepted your definitions anyway. (Off Topic) I never used Dawkins as evidence; I used him as an example. You were the one who decided that it needed to be elaborated upon, and you also act as if I have admitted defeat on the subject. Your assumed victory neither contributed to the argument nor was relevant in the first place.