Sure, let's cherry-pick definitions for agnostic, that sure won't backfire...
In other words, agnostic simply refers to the lack of knowledge of whether a deity exists or not. It has simply been misused in the past because of both fear of the atheist label or ignorance that atheism and agnosticism do intersect.
Oh, by the way, here's a quick link
for you to start acknowledging what's being said.
And you pull a quote I wasn't referring to attempt making me look bad. Such intellectual honesty! I was referring to the quote of kael saying what is pretty much the definition of an agnostic atheist and you saying "oh, that's not atheism, that's agnosticism". No matter how you backpedal from this, you pretty much separated atheism from agnosticism when they are intersecting and then you conflated the definition of anti-theism with atheism.
Wow, you're stupid. For someone saying I can't read, you aren't that skilled in the reading habits either. I actually pointed out that anti-theists were mostly gnostic atheist, thus saying that anti-theism and atheism are also intersecting just like agnosticism and atheism are. The point I'm making and you clearly are ignoring is that anti-theism and atheism aren't synonymous.
Sorry for repeating myself, but wow, you're stupid. Atheists do hold different beliefs but I didn't mention they were about atheism itself, you dolt. Some atheists hold beliefs that also are answers to the metaphysical, like knowing there is no God or that spirits exist. HOWEVER, the rest of atheists do not hold such belief and is not by some atheists holding such beliefs that will make atheism a belief. A belief requires a positive statement, and atheism is a negative statement, therefore incompatible only by itself with the concept of belief.
Except it isn't. Again I say, a belief requires a positive statement as basis. It's illogical to make a negative claim a belief, or else the word "disbelief" wouldn't exist.
So you're mixing apples and oranges just because they happen to be fruits. Also morality is independent of religion, so please don't come with non-sequitur and stick to the topic.
Not now, that humans achieved civilization, but before that evolution DID have a part to play in our morals and it still does in other species. The instinct of protecting the young, of working for the clan/pride/colony/etc and not just oneself, of not aimlessly slaughter individuals of the same species, these are the foundations of morals because doing that would promote the propagation of the species instead of its demise.
So yes, our morals can be traced back to Darwinian principals, they just, pardon the pun, evolved from them with civilization and society.
Funny how you quickly go for the ridicule without even thinking of the simple fact that humans have the capacity of learning (and teaching) and that they already have the basis of morals hardwired in their brain due to evolutionary processes. Not only that, morality has been an heirloom from generation to generation, always changing. If humans didn't have an inherent capacity for morals, how could newer generations modify the morality of older generations?