Again... that is incorrect. An Atheist has a lack of belief in God. It does not believe anything. It's by definition the lack of belief. 

Atheism and agnosticism are the same thing in this case. Agnostic is a term i imagine was thrown around to avoid persecution. 

I notice the other poster explained it more clearly. Apologies for the doubling down.

Yeah.  The problem is there's no like "first church of atheism", so there are a lot of different ways the terms are used.  Some people do use it like you do, others use weak atheism vs strong atheism, and some people indeed do use agnostic to avoid calling themselves atheists.  I personally find this to be the clearest use of terminology.  

How do you suggest then that you change those discomforts?  I can think of ways to change laws and make logical arguments, but I really can't think of a way to change those kinds of things.

Honestly, i disagree with the both of you.

Firstly, homosexuals make as much sense as all of us existing. It's nature. In the end we all die, the sun explodes, all life dies. The universe is chaotic and humanity is a blip. It doesn't have to make sense outside the context, wich is this planet and evolution of said life. Homosexuality is just like any other genetic condition. It is the product of imperfection, but none of us is the perfect human beeing. As great as DNA is for evolution, it hardly ever gets it right, and homosexuality is not the worst you can have.

Now, the second point, i think is utter foolishness. I don't think a homosexual is any less capable of raising a child than anyone else. There are terrible people out there, wich are infinitly worse human beeings who mistreat children. Also, these are genetic conditions. Parent's don't pass their straight to all their children from raising them, or there wouldn't be any homosexuals. The same is true for the opposite situatiob. The "gay" isn't infecting.

What a child needs is a caring home. Any issue that could arise would arise from external sources (aka discrimination). Caving to them is reinforcing them. So, i am definitly against that reinforcement.

More confused i see. ;)

If Einstein said that then he was wrong. Or maybe he used it to fool religious persecution, like many seem to do it.

I just want to add that your last statement is kind of ridiculous. Sure, people can call themselves whatever they want, but they can't change the meaning of words.

Another poster above explained it very well, probably better than i could cause i'm more confrontational. Here, i will paste it for you:

JWeinCom said:

Not exactly...

Gnostic comes from the greek gnostos meaning knowledge.  If you are gnostic about any claim then you are claiming it with certainty.  If you're agnostic you're not claiming certainty.

Being an atheist just means you'd say "no" to the question "do you accept that there is a god".  It doesn't, on its own, imply confidence that there is no god.  If you are certain (or very confident) there is no god, you'd be an gnostic atheist.  If you don't believe it, but don't necessarily claim to know it for a fact, you'd be an agnostic atheist.  You can also be an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.  They're not mutually exclusive terms.

People do use the terms as you do, but I think that's confusing.  Because if you asked me about my position regarding any god existing, I'd classify myself as an agnostic atheist.  As in, I don't believe it, but I don't know.  If you asked me if I believed in the judeochristian god, I'd classify myself as a gnostic atheist.  I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

I completely agree with this. I'm just saying that it's a deviation from the norm, or mode, whatever you prefer.

I think you misunderstood me there. I'm not arguing against adoption, I'm arguing against the argument that is nonsensical in that context. You can't flip flop in between answers like that because it fits your narrative, that's all. You can offer a better home to a child, that's perfect, but don't use the argument how natural your relationship is in the next sentence.

I don't know. I mean, if it's a natural "error", then why wouldn't people have a natural aversion? I'm not talking about harassment or hate but like the OP was saying... being grossed out. If nature doesn't want us to have same sex relationships, then wouldn't it create something to help ensure it doesn't happen?

That could be the reason for guys cringing when seeing other guys make out.

Anyone is free to do whatever they want with their asses.

Einstein died in 1955.  Language usage changes over time.  I don't know how he would define himself if he lived today, but by the definition most atheists use today, he would qualify.

As for letting people define themselves, that fails at a point.  If we're going to have a conversation about atheism or atheists, we need to have some common understanding of what the term means, and we have to agree on some meaning.  Otherwise we can't have a conversation.  

It's like if someone said they were a Christian, but they don't believe christ was divine.  There are definitely people like that who would classify themselves as Christian, but if we're having a broader conversation about Christianity, we'd probably exclude them.

How it is perceived by the masses isn't really relevant since the masses are not atheists.  Christians (assuming we're talking about the Western world) don't get to define atheism.  When they do, they often go with the definition that is easiest to argue against.

The majority of atheists define it as a lack of belief in god.  So, that seems to be the best definition to go with.

Now, for the homosexuals here, I guess the reverse could be asked. That'd really help us in our understanding of whether or not it's natural or a social construct.

Something being disgusting to you should not be the problem of the people who are doing the thing itself - think of it as some food you really don't like.... should it be banned in some way? 

I mean, I don't like some type of girls (no need to be specific) I mean, literally the idea of sleeping with them disgust me... I know for a fact that many guys find these same girls pretty exciting... sexual attraction is like that, there is a whole scale that goes from disgust, to neutral all the way to I can't hold myself, and what does what to who is very much an individual thing, wether the source of a particular attraction is social or purely genetic is of little importance.

Either way, it's really not more complicated than that, some people just like to put their nose in stuff that isn't their business.

On a lighter note, keep in mind that all those guys that prefer other guys are a lot less likely to be interested in the girl you like in the future, so be thankful!