All atheists and theists are agnostics?

True; gods are created by men (and women) based on their imagination. Nobody has ever produced any evidence that any man-made god exists. They are all conjecture based on mythology, and what powers any god possesses.

Humans are prone to believe in gods; that's proven by the many gods that are believed to exist. It is believed there are over 330 million Hindu gods.

Certainly i agree with that. What i disagreed with was your dismissal of any point of view but your own. There is, in fact, little difference between our positions. I do not assert that there are no gods--but i don't believe it, and i don't care. This is never a part of my life. This only comes up in online discussions. There only real difference between my position and yours is that i do have an opinion on the matter, but it's no more important to me than it seems to be to you.

I admit, my conduct yesterday was not one to inspire constructive discussion. Pardon for trolling. Usually I know better.
In any case, what I want to argue is that I favor the definition of 'atheism' that says those who believe there are no gods are atheists, with the exclusion of those who either believe in gods or remain undecided from the category.

Well, you can argue that, but you don't have the common definition of atheist on your side, and i suspect that you choose that definition because it supports your point of view. It's often enough that people do that, but it's also often enough that others object.

It's never easy to admit that one was wrong, or behaved badly. I salute you for that, and suggest that we bury the hatchet.

Thanks. Let's not bury it too deep though, lest this become boring.

well there has to be a definition, if just for the sake of argument. Someone has to define it. Otherwise...I mean. Huh?

Syracuse,

are you saying that there is a difference between "lacks a belief" and "believes there is no god." Is that the argument...? Because I just don't see how these are different aside from semantics. Is your semantics saying one is quite stricter than the other?

Well, your wording is slightly different than the ones used in legal practice currently as they above said, but I fail to understand your difference at the outset. Are you saying you would reject someone as an atheist if they did not word it like that?

So I found the argument; that's all I'm saying.

I'm wondering if modern atheism tackled the notion of gods already. If it's quite practical or insistent that an atheist believes in a god as a "devil by plague"

humans are definitely prone to believe in God and those beneath God. why might they be?

Free will? LOL

If there is a God ....he seems quite aloof to the human condition. Individuals such as Einstein vacillated between beliefs concerning the existence of God. At some point he believed due to harmony in the universe , God must exist. But, he thought God"s existence not on the personal level humans believe it to be, but rather in a more remote way.

well other than that

no clearly they think you are a powerful person and that is why they quarrel with you.

shamelessly too.

You already answered your own question by using the word "prone."

Yes He does. The bible's explanation is just that, Satan has it for some time. I don't care what Einstein said because I don't think he is the author.

So God's aloofness is remote? In a physical way or ...another way?

what if I didn't though

hahaha

Well a scientist tries his best to not be an author of B.S....at least some of his principles can be proved.....and then there's this....God has never contacted me. Has he contacted you?

Let me try to illustrate the difference with a different example:
Do you agree that there is a difference between "not liking women" and "liking men"?
It is possible to not like women, but still have no interest in men. You are not gay if you don't like men, even if you don't like women either.

Similarly I think there is a difference between those who simply disregard theism and those who deny it.

There is one thing I would like to bring up.

I agree that any world view that doesn't involve gods is an atheistic world view. In that regard the word only means that there are no deities involved.
My participation in this thread has been focused on professed atheism as a personal stance, in contrast to the personal stance of theism. This is more than merely a description of a world view. Perhaps this is what Setanta wanted to bring to light with his reference to weak and implicit atheism.

But I feel there is a difference between atheism as a classification of world views and atheism as a professed "creed". It is only the latter I take issue with.