what is the most important aspect of the interaction between belivers and non believers

[AtheistCrusader]

249. Oh good grief, I just told you what agnostic means.

Theist: Belief
Atheist: Non-Belief.
Gnostic: Knowledge.
Agnostic: Unknowable.

You can be an agnostic or a gnostic Atheist. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god, but accepts we can't know there is no god. A gnostic atheist does not believe in, and knows or professes to know that god cannot exist. You can be a agnostic or gnostic theist too.

THESE WORDS HAVE MEANING. The meaning isn't 'whatever feels good, man'.



Now, back to your logical fallacy.

"The atheist also accepts the proposition as valid and answers 'no'. Their 'belief' relies on the sole question of whether there is empirical evidence and a falsifiable theory. Of course the later is the by-product of scientism and the new 21st century New Atheism. "

What complete and utter horseshit.

"Everyone has a personal set of beliefs"
Not related to spirituality/metaphysical/supernatural shit 'everyone' does not.

One either believes or does not believe. Belief is a positive act, an 'extension' of faith in the sense of reaching or lifting. I make no such extension, I make no such positive act. NOT doing so, isn't morally or logically equivalent to doing so.

That's like saying a rocket, sitting on the Launchpad, that failed to launch, is still a Rocket Launch. Someone fueled it. Someone put it there. But no fire, no launch.

I suspect I know why people like you insist on pretending the two states are morally equivalent, but it's not going to fly with me.