Following a trail from the Reason Rally, I found this link from the National Atheist Party:
http://www.usanap.org/uncategorized/presidents-address-on-atheism-and-agnosticism.html/http://www.usanap.org/uncategorized/presidents-address-on-atheism-and-agnosticism.html/
Atheism and Agnosticism are not incompatible at all. The problem is the colloquial understanding of agnosticism - it has been mis-defined in peoples’ minds as “I have my own belief, which may include a god figure or not.”
In fact, atheism is a position on theistic belief, and agnosticism is a position on theistic KNOWLEDGE. An atheist doesn’t believe that any god(s) or goddess(es) or supernatural claims exist because there is no evidence in favor of them. A theist believes in the existence of a god(s) or goddess(es) regardless of evidence.
I've had the Atheist vs Agnostic debate many time, but for some reason never came to this conclusion and clarity. I'm thinking about bringing this topic up again with some frienenemies but wanted to see if anyone here thinks this is too simplistic.
This has gone for a while, and it's always an argument of semantics. You also may see terms such as "dictionary atheist" as opposed to "atheists" which would mean something like activist atheists. I don't see an end to it.
I understand when people say they can be atheist and agnostic, and in their case, I agree, but most people who identify as "agnostic" are the ones who think theism and atheism are two polar opposits. I like to call them the 50-50 agnostics, and they annoy me to no end. I mean, what the F are you agnostic about? Resurrection? Virgin Births?
Ugh, let me correct my horrible writing, lest people think I'm one of them dirty foreign speakers or something.
"This has been going on for a while [...]"
"...opposites..."
"births" should be in lowercase.