Very well, I’ve edited my original post to reflect that my intention was to refer to strong-atheism or the position that God definitely does not exist.
I’d prefer you edited the title as well?
For the sake of clarification
No need to get your jimmies in a rustle.
You think that a person can be either theistic or atheistic. What I was referring to was so called strong-atheism.
You argue that a person can be agnostic and atheistic ie: weak-atheism.
Fine, we’re in agreement already.
One can be weak-atheistic and therefore agnostic- whether that’s two different “philosophies” is not only wrong (read: dictionary) but completely besides the point: a red herring.
There is a binary condition - theistic or atheistic but within the atheism there are two forms: strong and weak. Weak being agnostic atheism or, in one word, agnosticism (though clarifications have been made). Separating the philosophical positions vis-a-vis belief in God and conflating atheism with strong-atheism creates a false binary dilemma (which is also logically inconsistent: that agnosticism has no relation to believing in the existence of God). ie: False Dilemma
That’s well and good, but your tangential appeal to semantic hand-waving is meaningless and demonstrably also incorrect. Ergo Ignoratio Elenchi - you are arguing something that is not even in discussion.
Within that you at once accept the dictionary as a source and then refute it: Moving the Goalposts. You only accept the source that suits your argument: Texas sharpshooter/Cherry-picking.
Unless you have some point to make I’m going to go ahead and let you have the last word, which you must have; I know. Perhaps another Ad Hominem?