Atheist vs. agnostic vs. agnostic atheist

[bennyboy]

So is a lifelong confirmed Christian who is currently asleep or in a coma.

Only in BennyWorld.

If by BennyWorld, which you seem to intend as derogatory, you mean "a world in which people in a coma cannot formulate or be known to hold beliefs" then yes. But there's no reason to relabel the actual world by saying it's mine.

Agnosticism has nothing at all to do with beliefs - it's not making positive statements for which you have no evidence. (And I'm not agnostic about that, I have actual evidence that that's what agnosticism is.)

Agnosticism is a position of not-knowing. The other things you're saying are individuals' refinements of the idea, but are not required. For example, I believe there are things which human beings can never, ever, know, because of our limitations. Obviously, I cannot prove this, and yet I'm pretty comfortable asserting it.

Atheism is concerned with only a 'yes' question - "do you believe in any god?" If the answer is 'no', you lack belief. You are "without belief in gods" - a-theistic.

Sorry, but your etymology is incomplete. As you know, there are two ways the word parts are compounded, known as soft and hard atheism: (a) + (theos + ism) and (a + theos) + ism. Tyson is addressing this, and saying talking about the lack of beliefs is pointless. I happen to know that you are aware there are two viable definitions-- you just choose to campaign against one of them.

By the way, in what central atheist doctrine is it outlined that atheism is "only about" what you want it to be about? There are many people who believe God/gods do not and cannot exist, and are not interested in comparing themselves to beagles and baby diapers or all the other things in the universe which are unable to formulate beliefs about things. I think what you want to say is that "lacking a belief in God/gods is SUFFICIENT to say that something is atheist." And with this, I'll agree. However, since I don't think that kind of atheism really means anything, I still prefer the term "agnostic."

Therefore, I do not think those criteria are adequate, because talking about the lack of religious belief of diapers isn't a very useful conversation.

Neither is talking about the inability of computers to think. Yet both are completely true.

It's true also that diapers and computers are a-unicornist. However, it's not worth mentioning. There aren't websites and forums about it. People don't rally around the word, or use derogatory language about it. They don't spend page after page of text discussing it. Maybe part of the problem is that I don't come from a background where religious groups are particularly intrusive or annoying. So I understand the motivation to look at the issue in a certain way-- however, I don't think imposing that view on others to whom it doesn't appeal is good. To me, a refusal to accept my assertion that I'm not atheist, but agnostic, represents a level of intellectual oppression-- I'm clearly stating my beliefs and reasons for them, but am being drawn into a group with which I don't fully identify.