That's why virtually everyone on this site is an agnostic atheist.

Do you want me to cover the fact that most agnostics are completely absent of a god belief and are therefore atheist?

 Have you read this yet? http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

Will you be posting any more blogs about the same topic?   Or do you think maybe four is enough? 

We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

COMBINED FROM ANOTHER POST BY MOD:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I'll see your cut and paste information, and raise you cut and paste information that was highlighed in our menu....

A good deal of people consider themselves to be 'agnostics'. By this they mean to identify themselves as doubters on the question of a 'god's' existence. They usually hold to this position of doubt because reason compels them to doubt the existence of any 'god', yet they resist calling themselves atheists because they also want to hold to their disbelief tentatively. Their expressed reason for this is clear: while their reason leads them to doubt the claims of theism, reason also demands that they keep an open mind on the question of 'god'.

If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. Why is this so? Because the word 'theism' simply implies a belief in a god. Therefore, if you find yourself identifying yourself primarily as a doubter of the existence of a 'god', then you are an a-theist... someone who does not hold to a belief in a 'god', someone who does not accept the claims of theists. That's all the term means - a position of non acceptance, a position of non belief. It is the fallback position, the position one holds to when a claim is unsupported or unproven.

Yet, you might feel that the word 'atheist' still implies more than what you actually hold to. A common response to hearing that one is an 'atheist' is to say: "But I don't disbelieve, I just don't believe!" But take a look at those words carefully: if you literally "don't disbelieve" - then, by double negation, you'd believe! Not disbelieving is believing. But you are not identifying yourself as a theist with doubts, right? You're identifying yourself as a doubter... period. That is atheism.

But you still seek some sort of middle ground, right? Something between theism and rejection of theism. Well relax, because the atheism IS your middle ground. "A-theism"' implies everything that a rational doubter means when he declares himself an 'agnostic', for while it's a common misperception that atheism implies a denial or rejection or active disbelief in the very possibility of a god, this is not so. In fact, we require a special term for those those who hold to such beliefs: "Strong Atheism". The rest of us doubters simply don't hold the belief... we're all atheists, whether we are doubters or outright rejectors of theism. So the missing 'middle ground' that you are looking for, rational tentativeness, is already included within the term 'atheism'.

So what does the word "agnostic" actually mean and how ought we use it? Notice the 'a' in front. 'Agnosticism' is a position counter to gnosticism. And what is gnosticism? It's the belief that a human being can possess knowledge about a god. It's an epistemological term - about the possibility of knowledge in regard to 'god' claims - and not a statement about matters of belief. 'Agnostics' hold to the epistemological position that human beings can't actually know anything about something beyond nature, something theists call 'supernatural'. So they believe that there's no way for a human to know anything about a 'god'. But there are many theists who agree! Theists can be be agnostics! In fact, many theists say that they hold to their god belief on faith because they agree that we humans can't know things about the supernatural, or 'god'. Some very famous theologians have agreed that man is limited and that this means that man cannot have 'god knowledge". The list of theologians would include people like Martin Luther or Soren Kierkegaard.

So when one says that they are an 'agnostic' and they mean a 'doubter', they are really saying that they are agnostic atheists. So if you find that this describes your own 'agnosticism', welcome to atheism!

- Todangst

SEE ALSO: Agnosticism and it's many misconceptions by RRS co-founder Rook Hawkins, and the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Q: But I don't disbelieve in god! I just don't believe!

A: Again, if you literally 'don't disbelieve' then it would follow that you believe. You obviously don't mean to say this! What you probably mean to say is that you don't believe, OR reject the possibility of 'god' claims either. This leaves you without any theistic beliefs. Unless you are a pantheist or a polytheist (a person with god beliefs other than theism), this makes you an a-theist. Atheism does not necessarily imply anything other than a lack of theistic belief.

Q: But my dictionary says that 'atheism' is defined as ....

A: Will it surprise you to find out that dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people might use? I hope not! Will it surprise you to find out that not all of these definitions are appropriate for every context? I hope not!

Would it surprise you to find out that some theological and philosophical terms have colloquial usages? And that dictionaries list these definitions, even definitions based on common error, along with the proper theological definitions, and even, in some cases, in lieu of the proper definition?

Well, here's what you should know if you're going to cite a dictionary in a philosophical discussion: Dictionaries exist to provide all the popular definitions that exist for a word, meaning that some of the definitions may not be suited to a particular usage in a particular context. If people use the word 'atheist' to mean 'satanic' or 'evil', then a dictionary might list that meaning. If people use 'atheist' to mean 'strong atheist' then a dictionary might list that meaning.

Dictionaries might even list the actual meaning of the 'atheist' or 'agnostic'. But one thing that dictionaries usually do not do is provide a rigorous philosophical justification for every definition listed. And that's just one reason why citing a dictionary in a theological or philosophical conversation is not the proper way to settle an issue:

First, you're not providing a source that actually provides a philosophical justification for the definition, they are merely citing common usage.

Second, it's likely that you're importing a non theological usage of the word into a theological debate, particularly if you are going through the list of alternative definitions until you find a definition that suits your particular need.

And that's a fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy just as silly as thinking that you could jack up your car with a Jack of Hearts.

Q: But common usage creates new meaning for words all the time. We should accept these popular conceptualizations.

A: Yes, common error does lead to new usages. But it is an error to transport these new definitions based on erroneous misperceptions back to their original context. We call this sort of error a fallacy of equivocation.

Example: the word 'agnostic' is now a catch-all term for 'undecided'. People literally say things like "coffee or tea, I'm agnostic on that."

Now, if a person were to enter into a discussion of 2nd century gnosticism, and were to try and use the word 'agnostic' as indicating 'uncertainty' they would obliterate the actual intention of the word 'gnostic' as it is used in this theological context, to indicate knowledge.

Q "The actual root word for 'atheism' is theos, meaning that 'atheism' is actually 'a-theos' - without 'god'"

No atheist uses the term 'atheist' in the sense of 'a-theos' or being 'without god - this wouldn't make sense seeing as this usage implies the existence of a god! This sense of the word 'atheist' was used as an insult by Christians and has no application to self professed atheists who are professing a lack of belief, and not a position of 'godlessness'