I have some questions for the posters here.

[vulcanlogician]

But to invent a descriptor like "atheist" and then insist that IT applies to all PEOPLE WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" ANY GODS EXIST...is an absurdity to logic and reason. (Your Vulcan logic should be flashing alarm buttons because of that!)

I have a policy on the internet. Especially since my username attracts comments like these.

Don't say something I said was illogical. Say HOW it is illogical.

ie. show me how some conclusion I have made doesn't follow from my premises.

There is nothing inherently illogical about choosing a certain descriptor. The logic problem, if there is one, must lie in what conclusions underly the selection of a given descriptor. The problem is, this is a semantic debate, and there is no substance to your criticisms.

At the outset of a debate, it is often helpful that each party provides their own definition for terms. They can choose any definition they want. But once you KNOW which definition they are using, you can criticize their ACTUAL POSITION... rather than their choice of words.

For instance, if you think positively declaring gods do not exist is unreasonable, have a debate about its unreasonableness... not about which terms we select for which beliefs.

I mean, I guess you're trolling, right? You're being disingenuous, shit posting and stuff... and if you're a troll, you'll be gone when we're done with you.

But just in case you aren't, I figured I'd offer you into the substantive debate. Because you seem to be getting caught up on words.

Forget what word is used for what. Let's talk about the reasonableness of saying "I do not believe X." When X is something you do not know.