no, i'm not. what the fuck arent you getting? MY DEFINITION OF ATHEISM IS THE SAME AS YOURS OF AGNOSTICISM! damn, this conversation went from widely informative to completely retarded in one post. Can you keep up? Should I type slower? You know, what else can I do to help you see what I'm saying, because every time you post I get the feeling you've read all of one sentence of what I said. Are the other sentences confusing you? Or are you purposefully pretending to misread me?

no, I didn't. Supplies!

Well look who's getting their ass kicked....LOL Stupid Jerk..

__________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain!

Well, that is the problem. You are trying your best to co-opt agnostics, but if we wanted to be grouped with you, we wouldn't have gone out and created a distinction to separate us from atheists. And we are different.

Atheists who accept that they can be wrong about the existence of god because they lack evidence are not atheists in my book, however if they want to call themselves atheists then that is up to them, though I can continue to believe they are agnostics.

And you can continue to believe that agnostics are wimpy atheists, and I will continue to show why I don't agree with you. That is life (and that I can do it with hostility also shows the difference between the two, but that is a different matter).

Will I support atheists against theistic attempts to impose their religion on us. Sure. However I will do so by the guiding principles of Thomas Huxley, using reason, not scorn.

wow, okay, this is dumb, but i'll sidetrack to teach you something about how dumb dictionary worship sounds to the intellectual community. The dictionary is a recent invention. Most dictionaries are owned by large corporations. Viacom owns Merriam Webster, for example. Dictionaries are constantly changing their definitions. Dictionaries are NOT written by anyone special, often many writers converge to define specific words, but none of these people are geniuses or anything. Sometimes they get guest stars to do a few definitions, Kundera or Rorty somewhere in there. But this usually isn't the case. So, here I am, a human, like you, only difference is that I'm in complete control of my vocabulary, whereas you're the victim of it. I see words the way they are, metaphors in and out the flux of literalization. Changing, evolving like biology to adapt to the environment. You are free! I set you free, from here on out, define things the way YOU want to define them, and share your definitions.... I mean, you're doing that right now, the only difference is you're just sharing someone else's thought.

im holding my own but please, dont fuck with me

No it isn't the same because your definition includes people who "KNOW" that god doesn't exist. I am not in the same class of those. Think of an overlapping venn diagram with two circles, one for atheists and one for agnostics. Now there can be parts of the circle where the two overlap, but there are also sections that are separate. That makes them two different things, related perhaps, but different.

Now, again, if you want to claim that there is no difference, then you seek to lump us together like fundamentalists lump us together. That is why you are similar.

likewise

lets move on from our mutual understanding. can you explain to me how in your context (the one you're describing) things are better than in my context? Cause thats what its about right? Which one actually serves its function? I feel as if I've explained my side, that my definition is better if not only because it actually includes more self-ascribed atheists than your definition. I can't even really think of a better criteria for a definition. Can you? Help me out, help ME see the benefit of YOUR perspective!

LOL, if you believe that, then you are a fascist. You are demanding that I accept your definition for myself as opposed to keeping mine for myself. That is very authoritarian of you.

I only got involved because you were wrong about the origin of the word agnosticism.

Oh, and hate to point out the contradiction in your statement, but if all words are relative, then no one is "complete command" of their language (or coversely everyone is, it pretty much is the same thing at this level).

While my definition does include the potential for that thought, my definition does NOT imply that thought, nor any other. Its what links all atheists together, an apathy towards theism, an non-theistic context. Within my definition, all atheists (and agnostics) fall. See, atheism isn't a claim, like I keep saying. We all don't agree. In fact, we rarely agree. The ONLY thing we agree to is my definition, and that is simply what makes us atheist. Being an atheist does not STOP you from being anything EXCEPT a theist, thats it, its someone who does not think in a theistic context, thats you and me and a a few million people world wide. You can still be an agnostic, though, again, I hate that word, and prefer to it instead being an Ironist (its a post-analytic philosophical concept very similar to agnosticism, but not only applying to theism but all metaphysics).