Atheism is a belief

The argument as to whether or not an agnostic-atheist exists relates directly to the topic. You are claiming that atheists must make a claim that a God or many gods do not exist. That claim is fundamentally flawed because an atheist can be an agnostic; most are. In the same light, some atheists fit perfectly into the straw man you are making, but they do not make up most atheists. In fact, they are the vast minority. 1. You are ignoring my points and continuing to claim rejection. Atheists do not have to reject the existence of a God or gods. Not believing and rejection are too vastly different concepts. I have already provided an example, but I will do so again for the sake of the argument. Were Ernest Rutherford to claim that atoms have a small, positive core before doing any testing, it is the default position to not believe him. Even if he was correct, which he was, the intellectually honest person must refrain from believing until sufficient evidence is provided. In Ernest Rutherford's case, he went out and found evidence, so now we accept his model as the standard for how an atom is structured. In religion's case, evidence for the supernatural has never existed and will never exist by definition. To have evidence, something must be natural. Claiming that atheists "reject" in the first place is ignoring everything that I have said up to this point and repeating the same rhetoric. I am going to ignore "reject" and replace it with "disbelieve" in this case because I have explained to you several times why atheists do not necessarily have to reject the existence of a God or gods. Claiming that atheists make a pragmatic assertion because of science is just ridiculous. There is no evidence for a God or gods. No science is going to explain that away. It is just intellectual honesty to admit that making a claim on something for which there is no evidence leads one to the incorrect conclusion at the same rate as guessing. Pragmatic assertions can also be based on lack of evidence. If there is no evidence for something, then there is no reason to believe in that thing. The theist has made the positive claim by stating that there is a God or gods and listing of its/their characteristics. When theists inevitably fail to provide evidence, the atheist will continue to disbelieve without rejecting. Also, one does not need to disprove God. You are trying to turn the burden of proof back on the atheist, and that is not how the laws of logic and debate work. The person making the positive claim must provide evidence, and the negative must refute the evidence-- not make a negative claim. It is a bit like a plaintiff lawyer telling the defendant to prove that his client was not at a crime scene. If the plaintiff lawyer cannot provide any evidence that the defendant's client was at the crime scene, then there is no court case. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In that case, it is the plaintiff lawyer. 2. You are ignoring what I am saying and restating your argument. An atheist is not someone who necessarily has to make a claim on the existence of a God or gods; an atheist states his or her beliefs on the matter. The atheist says, "I do not believe in a God or gods." Some atheists say, "I reject the existence of a God or gods," but those people are not our subject matter today, for they do not represent all of atheism just as the Westboro Baptist Church does not represent all of Christianity. Your idea of someone having to be agnostic, atheist, or theist is just incorrect. An agnostic makes a claim on his or her knowledge of the matter. An atheist or theist makes a claim to his or her belief on the matter. Those things can and do overlap. I am going to ignore this paragraph, for it is a pure ad hominem that has no place in a debate. Everything we disagree upon is the definition of an atheist. Whether or not you enjoy it, an atheist does not have to make a claim on the existence of a God or god. Richard Dawkins is an agnostic-atheist because he does not make the assertion that there is no God/are no gods. Dawkins asserts that it is intellectually honest to not believe because that is the default position. Were I to make a claim about what happened before the Big Bang, something unknown and possibly unknowable, then I could make the same arguments for you. I am going to make the ridiculous claim that before the Big Bang, Isis and Osiris sat around forming a plan as to how to form the universe. If you are to be believed, then everyone must make a claim on the matter. Every single person must either claim yes, you are definitely correct or no, you are definitely incorrect. There is no evidence for either, and both positions are equally unjustified. The correct course of action in that situation is the position which we will hopefully both take. We will both not dismiss the idea, but we will say that there is no evidence, so we will not believe it. We will continue to make a pragmatic assertion that Isis and Osiris did not formulate the plan to create the universe, and we will spread our opinions about how people who whole-heartedly believe such things are being ridiculous. We are Richard Dawkins in that situation. Richard Dawkins has chosen not to believe outlandish claims and has pragmatically asserted that they are incorrect while admitting that there is a chance that they could be correct, however small.