Originally posted by Lestov16
Nah. Atheism implies outright complete disbelief in a higher power (or "God"😉, thus why it's name means "without gods".
That's not true. You're using a very specific and niche definition of atheism, good sir! 😄
You may want others who identify as atheist to fit your definition, but that is just not how it works. Almost all atheists (any worth their weight in salt) will admit to and concede in the possibility of a higher power. Ask Digi: he identifies as atheist but admits to a weaker version of Robtard's position.
Originally posted by Lestov16
If Dawkins believes in the existence of a higher power, that qualifies him as an agnostic, not an atheist.
Incorrect on 2 parts:
1. He believes in the possibility, not an actual solid belief. He identifies as atheist but only if pressed will he concede that it is a form of atheistic agnosticism.
2. Let's pretend what you said is true of Dawkins: you're still incorrect. That makes him a theist of some sort. Usually, those types are pantheists.
Originally posted by Lestov16
And unlike Dawkins who believes it's a possibility, I believe a higher metaphysical power is 100% objective fact. We just haven't discovered it's true nature yet because we're being bogged down by these obsolete religions.
You are not agnostic, then. You are a gnostic theist. Congratulations: you share the same space with people like suicide bombers, Moses, Joseph Smith, and David Koresh. 🙂