That's the thing, I'm not doing it to elevate a group, I'm doing it because it needs to be done. That would be the case whether I was a theist, an atheist, a stamp collector or whatever. I'm not trying to elevate atheism through my charitable giving or my charitable activities, I'm just being a moral person.

That's all any of us should do. Do good simply because it needs doing.

Being a freethinker doesn't mean swallowing any load of gullible bullshit that comes down the road, sorry. The point is, words have meanings, you either go with what the words mean or you come up with different words to which you're perfectly free to assign your own meanings. Words like "atheism" and "agnosticism" already have meanings which are quite specific. People who want to twist those meanings so they can avoid a potentially sensitive word like "atheist" are just playing semantical games. It's like someone who likes the sound of the word "Jew" and wants to be a Jew, even if they don't fit the criteria. Simply twisting the definition around so that they can fit under that term doesn't make it so, it's just a word game.

The reason I keep insisting on the same position is that no one, yourself included, has presented a convincing case, backed up with logical reasoning and evidence, that supports a different path. To date, the best supported argument I've seen is the binary argument. Like all uses of the "a-" prefix, it represents a position without the initial claim. "Amoral" does not mean "opposed to morals", it means "without morals". It, like atheism, is a binary position. If you have morals, you are moral. Any other claim, including "I don't know" and "I don't care" puts you into the amoral camp. There is no "maybe-moral" position. Likewise, a theist is someone who has a positive belief in the existence of a god. Anyone who does not have that positive belief is, by definition, an atheist. You either have that belief or you don't. For those who aren't sure, obviously they don't have that belief or they'd be sure. It's not rocket science, it's just logic.

As for your dictionary comment, anyone can publish a book, call it a dictionary and claim that it defines words. There's no "rules" that have to be kept, no regulatory industry that keeps track of who is publishing accurate dictionaries and who is not. Dictionaries are also notoriously shaped by the opinions and beliefs of those who write them, they have biases. Therefore, it is important to go back to what words actually mean, not what men publish in books claiming they mean. "Atheism" and "agnosticism" go back to the Greeks. I'm using those definitions because they strike me as the most pure and simple available. Anyone who wants to argue logically for a better definition is more than welcome to do so, but so far, no one has.

You're more than welcome to try, but operating by assertion isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

And the wise man shouts it from the mountaintop. Behe is shunned, not because he has an unpopular opinion, but because he has a demonstrably false one. Behe's "great points", which you neglected to point out so it's questionable whether there actually are any, are buried under a tremendous load of pseudoscientific nonsense and religious fanaticism. He, like most pseudoscientists, has come to a conclusion first, then gone cherry picking for evidence that he can twist and pervert to support that conclusion. He didn't follow the evidence, he followed his faith first, evidence only when it was convenient to do so.

That's not science. Behe deserves to be shunned, he's earned it.

I never thought it was hard, I do it all the time. My charitable contributions are never announced anywhere, I don't feel the need to stand up and act self-righteous about who I give money to or why, I do it because it's the right thing to do, not for recognition or bragging rights.

In fact, the more someone talks about what they do, the less respect I have for the act since clearly, it was done for the wrong reasons.

If you're not sure if you believe, then you don't believe. Belief, by definition, is an active state. You have to take an active position in order to hold a belief. If you question the belief, then your belief isn't valid. Like it or not, this is a black-and-white, binary position. You either have a belief or you do not. There is no middle ground. As I said in the "are you dead" question, there isn't any logical position you can take where you are neither alive nor dead. By definition, the second you are not alive, you are automatically dead. Likewise, the second you are not a theist, you are automatically an atheist. Trying to dance around the rim of the cup because you don't like the term is logically irrelevant. You are or you are not, period.

I'm not going by "their" definition, I'm going by *THE* definition. Words have meanings, you don't just get to redefine things to suit your purposes. Whether or not you choose to self-identify with these terms doesn't change that fact that, in some sense, those terms may accurately describe you.

Belief is not subject to the will, you cannot force yourself, or anyone else, to believe something, only to profess belief in something. Therefore, these self-proclaimed agnostics do not hold belief in the factual existence of any god, thus they are atheists. There is really no two ways about it. Unfortunately, a lot of them are looking for absolute certainty and there's virtually nothing in life that we can be absolutely certain about. Hedging one's bets is intellectually dishonest on the face of it, it just means that you're not brave enough to stand up for your convictions.

I'm an atheist. It describes my position on a single question. If all the theists in the world went away tomorrow, I'd never bother describing myself as an atheist because it would be irrelevant. Having no faith in imaginary friends is no more relevant in a faithless-world than having no faith in Bigfoot in a world where nobody talks about Bigfoot. However, so long as the religious exist and keep telling everyone that their imaginary friends are real, I will continue to stand up as an atheist and speak out.

I'm skipping the Superbowl for the same reason I skip all professional sporting events. Why would I want to watch a bunch of overpaid primadonnas prancing around on the field when I can just go out with a couple of friends and toss a ball around and have a much better time?

Or, if you live in an affluent area like I do, the PTA is a big social club for soccer moms who need something to do. They're in it for the socializing, for the tea parties and the group back-patting, they don't actually accomplish anything, they just give each other awards to make them feel like they do.

Of course, you don't think the parties want an informed, intelligent, logical electorate, do you? They want us slow, dumb and gullible, that's the only way we'll vote for their candidates.

That's because "religion" doesn't do anything on it's own, it has no ability to act independently of people. There is absolutely no concept in existence that independently acts without the influence of human beings. However, the concept of religion, as used by human beings, most certainly does promote feelings of guilt. In many western religions, the concept that man is inherently sinful and cannot, of his own accord, be a good person is central to the religious teachings. It teaches that man is horrible and it is only with outside redemption that man can ever rise above his own shortcomings.

I never once said that religion should be banned, I said that we should outgrow religion. Yes, many of the bad elements of human nature would continue, but at least we'd recognize them for what they were instead of believing that they are artifacts of some invisible devil who makes us do things. Will humanity always retain these negative features? Most likely. At least let's be honest about where it comes from and what we can do to overcome it. Praying to an invisible man in the sky is never going to make the bad things go away. Getting off our butts and working toward a legitimate solution just might.