"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

[Peh]

Azuren said:

Nem said:

The definition of Atheism has always been the same. There can be no debate if you want to make one up for your your convenience.

Agnosticism is simply not a thing. Agnosticism and atheism are the same position.

And no, i didn't contradict myself. You can not believe on the absense of something. The absense is the default state. Ergh... this is why it's vexing to debate with Religious people. You don't know concepts and you don't understand logic. 

Here, go read something: https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Sounds like you have no idea what agnosticism or atheism really is, so lemme lay it out for you:

 

Atheism is the complete lack of spiritual faith. They don't believe there is anything behind the curtain. They don't worship science, like many theists believe- simply simply don't worship. They believe what science has proven, and they change their belief based on what new science discovers. They're evidence-based, and that's all there is to it. The day science manages to prove there is a God(s) is the day they will believe it.

 

Agnosticism is undirected spiritual faith. They believe there is something behind the curtain, but aren't placing their bets like standard theists do. Agnostics do lean back on science a lot, but have a more open mind to the possibility that there is something more spiritual at hand as well. Agnosticis can one day find a religion, but they can also just as easily spend their lives looking for a sign.

 

In other words: Atheists don't have faith in anything but evidence, whereas agnosticis have faith but are skeptical of where to place it.

Source, arf? 

 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic