@Frank Apisa,
Well technically speaking I'm an agnostic atheist. But the agnostic part is a rather trivial. All it does it narrate how the truth value of god is unknowable or unprovable. This fact has no barring whatsoever on my atheism.
For example, I can still have insightful discussions like, "I don't believe god exists because, X, Y, and Z." Essentially, I can still have
good and
justified reasons for my lack of belief in god, even if the ultimate truth value is unknown. By definition, I'm agonostic about floating teacups rotating around Jupiter, but I can still have solid reasons for denying that is the case.
Oh and break down this argument for me if you will:
P1. An atheist, by definition, is a person who lacks a belief in god
P2. Frank Apisa is a person who lacks a belief in god
C. Therefore, Frank Apisa is an atheist
Tell me Frank, which logical error have I committed or which premise is wrong? If I have committed no logical error and both premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.