Don't know = don't know (agnosticism). Not "therefor no gods" (atheism). This is the incoherence of the agnostic/atheist that you refuse to acknowledge.
It is incoherent, but it is nobody's position. Some atheists - those called agnostic atheists - say they don't know. The rest - gnostic atheists - claim they do know. These are a
MECE pair for atheism. All atheists are one or the other with none being neither or both. Mathematically, they are
complementary sets.
I ask any atheist here what atheism means to them, they will say it means that they assume no gods exist unless and until they are convinced otherwise (provided with sufficient knowledge). But that position does not comport with the 'I don't know' of agnosticism. Because it presumes to know that no gods exist unless our knowledge of their existence dictates otherwise.
Wrong again. You have nothing to offer an atheist in conversation until you can grasp your error, which seems to be beyond your intellectual capacity. This inability decimates your credibility (
ethos), which in turn results in others reading your words not in terms of them possibly having any insights worth considering to wondering what kind of cognitive bias is in play with you - why you appear to be unable to conceive of the absence of belief (unbelief, as I use the word) as different from taking a position that a proposition is true or false (belief or disbelief).
So the two positions are incongruent as they are commonly defined.
They are incongruent as you conceive them. The agnostic atheist's actual position, which you cannot assimilate, is sound.
pretending that atheism is simply another word for agnosticism doesn't resolve that incongruity.
More confusion on your part. It should be obvious to you that atheists use the words to mean different things, which is why one can be just an atheist, just an agnostic, both, or neither. They are independent variables diagrammable as a Punnett square.
The belief that no gods exist until proven to exist. The belief that the theist's gods don't exist because the theist's can't prove it. Every atheist believes that.
Wrong again. This atheist has explicitly denied that belief to you several times, but that apparently had no impact on your memory.
I'm simply asking for the same justifications that the atheists constantly demand of theist's.
Wrong again. Nobody is demanding justification of your beliefs from you. Atheists know you can't justify your theism by their standards (empirical). I know you can't. Most probably don't care what you believe if you can't say why you believe it. They simply reject such beliefs for themselves, because, if they are critical thinkers, they need justification before belief.
"Lack of belief" is both dishonest and deliberately convoluted as there is no logical reason for anyone to proclaim a "lack of belief". It's nonsense.
How can you possibly make a statement like that? This is where one should go into charitable mode and try to understand what you must actually mean, since what you appear to mean is unthinkable by any healthy human mind. Your own posting is mostly what you don't believe about atheists and their words. Yet you posted this anyway. How is that possible, I ask?
Agnostics and undecideds are neither theists nor atheists.
Everybody is an atheist or a theist. MECE, remember?
I just don't tolerate fools and liars well. It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another thing to fight to stay that way.
Tell it, Don Quixote.
