Atheism and agnosticism are the exact same thing.
How can someone affirming that there is no God be the same as someone saying that they have yet to see any conclusive evidence either way? I've met agnostics leaning either closer to theism or atheism, but the very defining point about agnosticism is that its a tentative disposition.
I'm both. I'm an agnostic atheist. I'm a 6 on the Dawkins scale, like Dawkins himself. Like Dawkins I have no problem making the statement "there almost certainly is no such thing as God." A statement that I believe the evidence abundantly supports.
Agnostic:
Atheist:
Why distinguish terms if its really just the same thing?
It's hardly necessary to have perfect knowledge to come to conclusions about things, Indeed, if it were, science would be impossible.
To be an atheist is to explicitly claim that there is no God. This is an absolute statement, meaning that the claim is certainly true. Many have no doubt realized the implications for making such a definitive claim. Now or days, it is virtually impossible in distinguishing an agnostic from an atheist. What I mean to say, is, their new interpretation allows them to still refer to themselves as atheists, because they now call themselves, ”
weak atheists.’ Basically, this is an invented term that is no different from agnosticism, except that, they get to retain the coveted title, ”atheist.’
Nevertheless, here is where the rubber meets the road: To claim, without reservation, that there is no God, leaves the claimant with the burden of proof to shoulder, not the theist. For the atheist to purport definitively that there is no God would mean that he has all-knowledge. If then, he has all-knowledge, he himself, would be God; and so he would actually nullify his own argument.
For instance, if we were to categorically state there are no monkeys living in Peru, what would that take to prove? It would mean that we would have to traverse the entire Peruvian landscape. We would have to trek through the densest jungles, go through every residence, every business, every church, every school, and even every sewer. Every space, within the boundaries of Peru, would have to be sought out completely.
Consequently, to prove this false, all that is required is to find just one monkey. If even one monkey is found, then the entire case against such is effectively dismantled. In addition, if he cannot complete the task, simply because he cannot exist in all spaces simultaneously, this also acts to discredit him. He then must concede that his statement is an assertion based on little more than guesswork.
The same rule applies when speaking about God. Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “
With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God. I have no real reason to assume that God exists, and so, I will operate under the pretense that no such God exists. However, it is unprovable.” If he were to state this, he would then be an agnostic.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci
™ Version 4.2