Agnosticism seems to be the most honest position even though it has the explanatory power of a gnat.
Lets be honest though, whats your opinion of the tooth fairy? Is there a certain number of believers required in an un-evidenced entity to graduate from dishonest atheism to honest agnosticism? Or are you open minded about all the crap that comes down the pipe?
A strong atheist is an atheist, in my opinion. A weak atheist is simply an agnostic.
I used to think that way also, talk to some of the resident atheists here on the forum however. I am nearly positive that you wont find one that fits how you are defining them. I don't believe I have met a "strong atheist" only "weak atheists" who lump all the gods into the same category; along with the tooth fairy. The only difference between atheism and agnosticism that I have found on this forum is that the atheists see no reason to be open minded about every fictional character that man has ever come up with.
It was therefore necessary to atheism to try and incorporate a more agnostic approach so that they would not commit a philosophically fatal flaw.
Its not a flaw to state that your virtually positive that Loki didn't flatten my tire or switch off my alarm clock. Why do you have to keep repeating all the time that its possible but probably not true? Pin an atheist into a corner however and they will admit that it could be possible but likely won't loose much sleep over it.
I'm trying to understand how two contradictory positions can be held at the same time.
You don't understand how atheists (generally) think and your likely pointing fingers at a stereotype.