1. No, it's really not. I understand the logic of remaining agnostic, and even indifferent. I do not understand the logic (if there is any) of choosing to surpass agnosticism and adopt the presumption that no gods exist.
2. It works for me.
3. Why? That is not a logical expenditure of your time or energy. What I am seeking here is the logic of choosing atheism, as atheists are constantly telling me how they only follow the logic and the evidence. So what is the logic and evidence of choosing atheism? I'm asking.
4. I am not interested in yours or anyone's presumed certainty. I am interested in the logic of choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic. Remember, I am starting with the baseline premise that we are all logically agnostic. If you are not agnostic, that's a whole other discussion.
5. Most theists are humanists, as well. So humanism is not a logical factor in choosing atheism.
6. Theists and agnostics experience all those same natural benefits. So they are not logical factors in your choosing atheism as opposed to simply remaining agnostic.
7. Are you unable to answer my question? If so, why do you think that is?
Good grief, you are exhausting ... I can't be bothered quoting each comment separately so I will take the liberty of numbering them
1, Imagine believer to atheist is a scale with 100% believer at one end and 100% non-believer at the other end. Your argument seems to be that unless you are 100% non-believer you cannot be an atheist. If you have 1% of doubt you must call yourself an agnostic. At what percentage do you stop being a believer and become an agnostic? Should someone who has a slight amount of doubt about god's existence but is still very religious not also call themselves agnostic? So, if you are defining atheism as only 100% non-believer, but 99,99% is agnostic - ok you win, I'm an agnostic. But I don't accept that very limited basis of defining atheism. It is similar to saying you are not a believer if you have any doubt.
2. What a non-answer. In other words you are sure you have the correct god. Good luck with that, if history is anything to go by all current gods will be in the dustbin in 1000-years time.
3. So, reading books that have no meaning to you, praying to something that isn't there; going to church/mosque/synagog/temple does not take time, effort and energy?
4. Question 1 already answers this. I define myself as an atheist because the chance of there being a god (in my mind) is so miniscule I don't worry about it.
5. No, by definition a theist can't be a Humanist, that's like saying most Christians are non-believers. Non-believers including atheists can choose to be Humanist, believers can't label themselves that way.
6. Q1 and Q4 already address this.
7. I have clearly answered the question. If you don't agree, I suspect that we have differing definitions of atheism. Perhaps you could give your definition, I've given mine.