Great analogy, poor application. If you're an atheist, you find him innocent of existing, and guilty of not existing. An agnostic finds him not guilty of existing and not guilty of not existing.
And here's where we disagree, because I am an agnostic atheist who finds him not guilty of existing. I use that label deliberately and precisely. Our disagreemt essentially boils down to a difference in definitions. I can and will defend mine, and I share them with a significant portion of atheists.
My point right here though was to show you that there is a difference between not believing in a god, and believing that no god exists. You asserted they were the same position. But it's the same difference between innocent and not guilty.
So you do stand behind the position that homophobic means afraid of gay people? Got it. I thought I was having a serious conversation but clearly I was mistaken.
Comments
"I don't believe X" is not the same statement as "I believe not X".
"Not guilty" =/= "Innocent".
I, as an atheist, find God not guilty of existing. I may even have a positive belief in his innocence.
But to be an atheist, I only have to find God not guilty. I have no belief that he his guilty of existing.
And as stated, I disagree with your definitions. Atheism goes to belief. Agnosticism goes to knowledge. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Me - the a in atheism means without.
Him - nuh uh
Me - here you go