Atheist vs Agnostic

Using the following arbitrary definitions from American Heritage Dictionary:AGNOSTIC: One who doubts the possibility of knowing the existence of God or absolute truth.ATHEIST: One who denies the existence of God.My question is: Why don't all atheist consider themselves agnostic?

Perhaps middle of the road atheist and Christians would admit this to themselves,(and probably only to themselves). But the fringe groups on both sides are fairly entrenched in their dogma and would deny this.Hmmm.. I don't see the difference between 'weak atheism' and agnosticism. Is this working definition of atheism postulated by you, or on this board, or elsewhere?

Well then, since you consider yourself being a member of the group we call 'atheist', how would you define it?

Does that mean that you don't know what to say about God and you are unsure of how to define your concept of atheism?

.Would it be true to say that you have not yet come to know of the existence of God?

Well, you have done the same thing with your concept of atheism. (i.e. can't tell me what it is). You say it is a non issue, but that does not preclude you from providing your definition since you reject the definitions presented in the OP.Here, let's try it this way, pretend you are editing the American Heritage Dictionary, fill in the following blank:ATHEISM:___________________________________________

Ahh, but you are using a different definition for agnostics other than presented in the OP. Is that what this board calls 'moving the goal posts'?P.S. That's an old photo of my little monkey, she's actually 5 years old now, but I always liked that photo.

That's unfortunate but figuratively true.

Huhh? A dictionary does not define the meaning of a word? Then what does? Is there other documented sources that can be mutually accepted by all parties which provides the meaning of words? If not, then we are all free to interpret the meaning of words ourselves. This then leads to neither side offering coherent arguments. Am I being coherent?

Wait a minute, in 2) you say 'the existence of God is vague' and in 3) you say 'God will remain non-existent.' Just because something is vague does not mean it does not exist.I know, I know, games with words but I couldn't resist. FYI, the immaterial pink unicorns are what the angels ride on. ---just kidding

Yikes, you don't have to break out the pitchfork.

Excellent point

I find this all very interesting. I had no idea there were so many shades of gray when it comes to those individuals who profess atheism/agnosticism.I still don't see much of a difference between 'weak atheists' and agnostics. I always considered that there were 3 basic groups, call them what you like:1) Those that believe God exist
2) Those that believe God does not exist
3) Those that don't know

Read the OP again. I'm not asking atheists to accept anything. I was interested in fostering a discussion about the distinction between atheists and agnostics and was curious as to why atheists, (or ‘strong atheists’, or ‘semi-permanent’ atheists or whatever----insert a label that best describes the subject. Please excuse me, I insert this lengthy parenthesis lest I be accused of defining words and mapping territory), close the door on the possibility of the existence of God.Yet at the same time, atheists criticize religious folk for closing the door on the possibility that evolution occurred.You at least acknowledge that for you the door is open. IMHO, this makes you more open minded that most and I suspect more willing to engage in meaningful dialog with believers.Where have I berated agnostics and accused them of being in denial?

For me, it's not an either/or proposition. The vast majority of my opinions are formed on the basis of extremely well supported scientific conclusions, but not exclusively.