you and no one here can offer me any logical reasoning for why it should not be dismissed as foolishness.
You keep posting that comment despite all of your questions having been answered by several different posters. That's your shortcoming, not theirs. How do I know? Because they articulate enough to be understood by one another, they are in agreement with one another, and their words seem to have no impact on you at all. You are arguing the same points you did 28 pages ago using the same words. There is zero evidence that you have understood anything you've read. Most things get no comment from you at all, and the rest gets answers like the one above - it's all foolishness to you. True, but once again, that's on you.
Furthermore, you never give reasons for calling things foolish. For example, you call it foolish for an agnostic to choose atheism, but use a private definition of atheist that I believe applies to none of the people you are debating with - maybe one. And you imagine them slipping from agnosticism to atheism. Yes, that's a foolish belief, and it's a mystery why you hold it, why you cannot conceive of a person being both an atheist and an agnostic. How can what you read not seem foolish to you with that map of those concepts? You don't understand your audience, and so they seem foolish to you. You've got it backwards.
Why should a definition of atheism so heavily include agnosticism when theists are also agnostic?
Neither your definition of atheist nor ours include agnosticism. You've been told this. You've seen the definition that the majority of atheists use to define themselves - one with no god belief, with no reference at all to whether they claim to know about gods or not. But here you are a couple dozen pages later still unable to assimilate that concept. You don't explain why you reject that self-definition. You just repeat that atheist means something else to you. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything else an atheist tells you about his atheist experience.
you all are SO busy auto-defending this nonsense that you aren't using your brains.
Yeah, everybody disagreeing with you is disagreeing with you in the same way, giving you the same answers, explaining the errors in your thinking to you in vain, and you not only frame that as defending themselves, but you fail to note the significance of that degree of consilience in your audience.
Critical thinking is a rigorous process. It follows rules, rules nobody is born knowing, and frankly, few people become proficient at it. But many do, and they can identify one another, and they can identify those that haven't learned to constrain their thinking to the rules of reason by the fallacies they post, and also for their failure to either understand what they read or to recognize that it is correct. Such people are careless in their reasoning, which is why they come to so many different positions. There is generally only one way to be correct in these matters, and uncounted ways of being wrong. If you knew that, and could recognize sound critical thinking in others, you would be concerned that so many such people disagree with you in exactly the same way. But as is the case with so many apologists in these threads, they simply aren't aware that there is a right and a wrong way to process information, and consider their own arguments just as valid. They don't recognize what others are doing or why it is a much better way to think.
Another poster on another thread told me I was arrogant to declare some ideas correct and some incorrect, some soundly reasoned and others fallaciously derived. To people that haven't learned the accepted and forbidden options to critical thinking, and generally are unaware that there even is such a thing as a method that reliably generates sound conclusions, all opinions are equal. Isn't that the problem the anti-vaxxers suffer from? They don't understand that when their opinions contradict the consensus of the experts and the data on the relative death rates of the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that their opinions are wrong, and they resent being told that. They simply aren't aware that there is a correct way to evaluate evidence, and that theirs is not it.
I also stated that theists gain value from presuming their truth claim is true, anyway.
Not always. I didn't when I was a Christian, at least not toward the end when it was becoming apparent to me that it was time to abandon faith. The experiment with theism was a failure.
I've told you that at least twice before, but like everything else, there was never any evidence that you read those words. You just keep coming back saying that nobody can give you a logical answer for being atheist. You not only fail to acknowledge seeing an answer - you don't rebut it or even mention it - you overlook the obvious. Of course I got benefit from reverting to atheism. If that transition had left me with unfulfilled needs, as might occur when one breaks up with somebody only to discover that they were happier before, they try to correct the error and restore the relationship. And sometimes, we're happier after that transition, and never try to go back. When a person leaves Christianity for secular humanism, 35+ years ago in my case - and remains outside of that old relationship, he's telling you implicitly that he got benefit from his atheism.
I gave you the analogy using corrective lenses, which was quite apt and deserved a response, but, as ever, crickets. The lenses represented theism, and I had you recommend that everybody wear a pair, because they fulfilled a need in you - the inability to read without them. I told you that I could be viewed as somebody with good vision who tried glasses to decide if they helped me see better, but found that I could see better without them, and so cast them aside. You would be the guy who continues insisting that it is foolish to choose no glasses when you could be wearing a pair, and failing to understand why it would actually be foolish to take your advice, since glasses not only fulfilled any unmet need, but actually made vision worse.
But you're still confused about why someone would make that choice when they can just as easily have gone on believing in gods or wearing glasses they don't need, and call the choice illogical. And you are probably unaware that you haven't made a logically sound argument in this thread yet. If you had, a whole host of people qualified to recognize that fact would be in agreement with you about it, but that hasn't happened yet, has it? I can't recall a single nontrivial assertion you've made yet that wasn't rebutted by more than one of your audience. But that is also of no significance to you. It doesn't tell you anything about yourself or those people disagreeing with you in exactly the same way
we're dealing with people, here, who constantly proclaim how logical and evidence-based they are. Who so far seem to be having a great deal of difficulty coming up with either of these in defense of their chosen atheism. One would think that would give them pause for thought ... IF they could stop knee-jerk auto-defending themselves long enough to pause for thought.
LOL.