Okay I lied, one more post. :p Besides I just had to share this. This is a bit of priceless dialogue from a terrible movie, "From Dusk Till Dawn 3". The scene is a slightly fictionalized Ambrose Bierce riding in a stagecoach. Enjoy. :D

Ambrose Bierce: My singular critique of the Good Book... is that its covers are too far apart.

Mary Newlie: Excuse me?

Ambrose Bierce: I am of the opinion that the, uh, Bible... is perhaps, the greatest assemblage of lies and untruths ever gathered together, with the possible exception of the Congressional record.

Mary Newlie: Are you an atheist, sir?

Ambrose Bierce: Yes, ma'am. Thanks to your God. I am an athiest.

Mary Newlie: Then there is no hope for your soul on the final day. When Gabriel blows his horn, your ears will be deaf... to the resounding tone of its glory, Mr. Bierce.

Ambrose Bierce: Oh, no. On the contrary, when Gabriel blows his horn, I shall be playing the tuba.

Atheists are open to the idea of gods existing, any atheist will tell you that. We may find it EXTREMELY unlikely, and think there's less than a 1% chance, but we acknowledge the possibility that gods can exist. This is a mistake people make time and again. You think that both theists and atheists are asserting something, that both sides are making a claim. That's not true, and that's why you don't understand. Only theists are making a claim. Atheists aren't.

In English, the prefix "a-" means lacking or without. The term "a-" theism means lacking theism, or without theism, (the belief in gods). If you aren't convinced gods exist, you're atheist. If you're unsure, you're atheist. If you wish gods existed, you're atheist. If you say gods can't exist, you're atheist. If you haven't spent time thinking about gods at all, you're atheist. When you're born, you're atheist. People are atheist up until the moment they believe in gods. Atheism says NOTHING about whether gods can exist, or should exist, or it would be bad/good if they existed, or anything like that. You can think gods might be real, and wish they were real, and even be jealous of theists, and still be atheist. Until you actually BELIEVE gods exist, you are atheist.

Hope that helps.
+1 to both of you. : )

Agreed I'm no longer going to debate steroid freaks. And one who uses "go read the bible" to "prove" his point.

You're missing out. IME dating carbon usually leads to something long-term.

Thought it was funny nadenitza asked for a label...then was unhappy when given one.

Nadenitza posted a link earlier to Neil Degrasse Tyson explaining why he called himself an agnostic, and I assume Nade has similar reasons to Neil. I responded there as well but in short, Neil seems to want to avoid the atheist term because of the baggage he thinks it carries and the assumptions people make about him. Baggage, assumptions and connotations aside, it doesn't change the fact that Neil is atheist. The same applies to Nade.

Like one of my heroes says, Agnostics are athiests who don't know it yet.

There are Jews who believe their Messiah has not come yet and Jews that believe he already came. Jesus was a Jew, his disciples were Jews, most of the initial believers were Jews, and at no point did they became anything other than Jews. I don't see how it is possible for evidence to support something as true without also indicating that it is true.

More like explanation... am still not impressed with the terminology, looks like there is no definition for me...

Yes, I've heard of circular reasoning, but faith is not circular at all. For example, a trustworthy friend tells you that they've done tests on an old bridge and it is safe to cross, you have knowledge that it is safe. However, you don't believe or have confidence that it is safe unless you are willing to cross it, and you haven't trusted your friend or had faith in them until you have crossed it. Please explain to me how acting in a manner that shows you trust your friend is circular.

Is it? Looks like everyone have his own truth here...

Doesn't matter what I think, it comes down to how you see yourself.

That was true of me. When I was younger I called myself agnostic because I held the erroneous view that:

theist = yes
agnostic = maybe
atheist = no

I later learned I was mistaken in my understanding of the terms, and have adjusted accordingly. It's why I take the time to explain it to others.

If you claim there are no gods, then that indicates to me that it is true that there are not gods, so that is evidence of that. However, I need to weigh that against contrary evidence. Saying there is evidence for something in no way means that what it evidence for is objectively true. I'm simply trying to stop the ridiculous idea that someone forms their beliefs in a vacuum without anything indicating to them that they are true. All beliefs have a causes regardless of whether or not you think the belief is true.