Look, now we're both disagreeing on who's using the term right. I remain behind my argument. You're misusing the term and doing so clearly to defend your own viewpoint at the cost of a widely held position. If you don't agree with that, start using better arguments, because you've been entirely unconvincing that you even have a basic grasp of what agnosticism means.
I couldn't care less what you think. The term I'm using is the correct one whose meaning is recognized through the whole world of linguistics.
There is a reason why you have to search for the religious meanings for your concepts of the word. That is the same as searching for the bullshit meanings of the word. Sorry, you can't change logic and reason. You will never succeed.
I think you have to have a knowledge of the idea of God in order to be an atheist, in order to consciously/explicitly reject the belief of gods. A baby who is just born cannot be an atheist if he/she has no concept of God.
A baby is an Atheist to everything as they are born. If it's something you haven't been presented to, you obviously don't assume it exists. I do think there's probably a different term to this as Atheism only refers to the god proposition, but i think you can understand.
Notice that this goes for our ignorance as well, where we are as clueless as babies. Whatever we don't know, we don't assume is real.
This is making me think how funny it is that religious people really want for there to be 3 roads. A belief of the opposite. There isn't. There is only a belief and the lack of a belief. Theres no 3rd road. There's no belief of the opposite. That would be a different proposition that in itself would be illogical.Last edited by Nem - on 13 January 2018