Not believing in god is agnosticism. Lack of belief = agnosticism. That was my point.

Your point is wrong.

No, it isn't.

Agnosticism is believing that the answer cannot be "definitively determined," but an agnostic still either believes (theist), or doesn't (atheist).

That is a complete load of crap. Agnostic is greek for "not known", it literally means "Don't Know" and since knowledge is defined as justified, true belief, the term agnostic applies equally to both knowledge and beliefs; Agnostic perfectly and completely describes the state of not knowing and/or not believing.

There is no such thing as an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. These terms are oxymorons.

Your definitions do not appear to correspond to any authoritative source.

Agnostic doesn't mean "ignorant of the subject," or "undecided," which is how you keep using it.

Agnostic means "Not known". That is exactly as I have been using it. I have no idea how you are trying to use it, I don't think you do either.

Believing in "not god" is atheism. That requires knowledge and faith.

Wrong again.

In order to be wrong again, I would have had to be wrong before.

Believing that gods don't exist requires no more "faith" than believing that faeries don't exist does. Said that before.

I think you need a course in the philosophy of logic. You cannot prove an absence. The issue of creation cannot be assumed away, and therefore the question of the existence of God is axiomatically bound to the question of the existence of your reality. Without using logic to disprove the existence of God(s), which is logically impossible, taking the conclusion of the absence of God(s) is one that must be done on faith, because logic cannot bring you there.

You are exercising irrational faith in this argument with me. I am giving you logic, you are arguing from a position of faith and religion.

You fundamentally give theism more credit than belief in other mythological beings, which it doesn't deserve.

It isn't an issue of merit, it is an issue of logic. The question of God(s) is wrapped up into first principals of reality. Faeries are not. Let me rephrase this so that you can see how preposterous what you are saying actually is, using your words:

"Believing that the big bang didn't happen requires no more "faith" than believing that faeries don't exist does."

Those are your words, but I replaced "Gods don't exist" with "Big Bang didn't happen". Do you see the problem now?

And, again, one doesn't need to know about theism in order to not be a theist (which means atheist).

No, not being a theist does not automatically make you an atheist.

Agnosticism is not a "neutral ground."

Agnosticism is the only rational position, because it is the lack of a position. Frankly, on this issue, if you think you know the answers to the riddles of reality, then you are a religious nutcase, regardless of what answers you think you have.

Faeries are completely different, because their existence has no bearing on your existence.

Nice try ... well, not really.

Depending on the version of faeries offered, they do allegedly have relevance to us, to varying degrees ... just like some versions of god.

The only definition of "God(s)" that matter here involve the intentional design and creation of this reality. If your faery created this reality, then it is God, and we return back to the starting point. If your faery did not create this reality, then it is irrelevant and it can be neatly sliced away by Occam's razor.

Atheism does require blind faith, actually. It requires faith because it is a BELIEF

You're the one making bad equivocations, among other things. According to your line here, every "belief" is, or requires "blind faith."

Not so.

I didn't say that, and even if I did, it wouldn't be an equivocation. Please look the word up. Holding a belief without logic or evidence is an act of faith, that is the very nature and definition of the word belief. The "blind" part comes into play when you have suggestible evidence that contradicts your belief, but you believe in it anyway (such as the fact that everything you are touching right now is a product of intelligent design, yet you refuse to acknowledge that same process may have produced reality as well).

It requires blind faith, because you are, yourself, an intelligent actor that designs and creates things and almost everything that you are looking at and touching was designed and created by other intelligent actors

The fact that intelligent beings exist is not evidence that some intelligent designer of the universe may exist ... at all.

I didn't say that. You seem to be unable to parse my words correctly. I apologize if I am taking you outside of your depth. What I said is that "by virtue of the fact that intelligent design is ubiquitous (everything you interact with is a product of it), ignoring the possibility that reality is also a product of intelligent design is an exercise in closing your eyes (ergo, "blind")"

You really are being asinine.

Think deeper.

Agnosticism means not having a position (literally, "Don't know")

Been through this before: agnosticism doesn't cover the question that theism and atheism do.

That's right, now you are getting it. Agnostic covers "Don't know", "Don't believe", "Undecided", "No position", etc..

Theism and Atheism are positions of faith based upon irrational conclusions that a person makes, rendering a delusion upon them that they actually think they have the ultimate answers to the most profound questions of reality (e.g. Jesus, Big Bang or whatever).

No, they are not. The question of God is axiomatic, predicated on your existence.

Other alleged supernatural beings have been described that way too. Your claim of it for possible (rather, just imaginable) gods is no more fundamentally credible.

Again, you aren't making the connection here. God = intelligent and creative designer/creator of reality. Faery = not God. If Faery=God, then drop the word Faery and keep the word God. Either way, one thing is not like the other. One of them cannot be ignored, because reality is predicated on some sort of creation, and if that creation was intelligently guided, that's God.

Anyway, I'm not going to entertain you any longer.

You should be looking at this as an education. Your not entertaining me. I am teaching you.