Maybe that's just semantics
WORDS have meaning. (the way guns have bullets)
What words we use are very important. (where you point the gun)
We cannot even think without words.
The more accurate our vocabulary the more accurate our thoughts become if properly used.
I'm not lecturing you, by the way, I'm just getting to the essence of the discussion itself.
Agnosticism is an admission of "not knowning".
Admitting you "don't know" is a humble starting position.
Atheism, on the other hand, begins with the conclusion (no gods) in advance. This is not intellectual honesty, imho.
Skeptical Inquiry is certainly more rational than mere Faith following the "things heard."
We've both been down that road and where did it get us?
A very natural reaction to having our World View destroyed (discovering our Faith and Belief are founded on lies) is to jump into the
oppositie mindset. This is natrual but illogical.
A middle road is more prudent simply because we need to "allow" room for evidence to be gathered before an examination is made and --then--only then, conclusions are drawn.
Science is trial and error.
Religion is dogma:conclusions in advance admitting to no skepticism.
Science eventually produced technology, advancement and human benefit.
Religion is stagnant and immediately defends through wielding threats and stimulating fear.
My personal opinion is that Atheism can only be honestly discussed if you don't take sides in advance.
Sam Harris begs the question, imho, rather dishonestly by trying to eat his cake and have it too. He says:
In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs
