I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Athei

I'm not a philosopher by any means but the interpretation of Atheism I presented above is widely used. Specifically by Matt Dillahunty and a lot of modern Atheist. I wouldn't be against an interpretation of agnosticism that is functionally identical to my interpretation of atheism, but at a certain point one word to describe a world-view is never going to be sufficient and explanation of the nuance is going to be required. You can say "Christianity" and you would be referencing both the Westborough Baptist Church and Christian Unitarian Universalists. I already described in detail in my first comment my interpretation of Atheism so I don't know where confusion could possibly come in. Therefore, I reject your premise that I "have to use the interpretation of what people mean, not the broadest one" because: - that varies from person to person and I cannot read people's minds. - Your interpretation is not universal - the interpretation I presented is actually quite widely understood and common. So while you are correct that I cannot assert "Atheism is X", you are wrong that I am wrong. Also you are the one having the pointless semantic debate about something I already explained and clarified in my first comment. Call me agnostic I don't care, even though an interpretation of agnosticism is that god CANNOT be proven, which is NOT what I said.