It comes down to how one forms beliefs. If beliefs are formed based on how likely something is to be true, then it comes down to how one validates truth statements.

If I have a model of how something works, and this model is predictive, that is to say it can illuminate a deeper understanding of something else not well known based on its structure then the model is a powerful theory and likely is as accurate as it is predictive.

I like to say that theories that work are as true as they are functional.

So for me a theistic god is not only dysfunctional but undoes much of the knowledge we have gained about the natural world. I call this counter predictive.

From that perspective I can KNOW that theistic gods do not exist. Am I 100% certain, no. Does the model of a natural world that has no room for the supernatural function: yes almost perfectly and each day it comes closer and closer to 100%.

Scientific knowledge is an asymptote, always moving closer and closer to being identical to the nature it tries to describe, throwing god into that never adds functionality, it only causes dysfunction.

So from this analysis I can say with more certainty than I can say on almost any topic that no theistic gods exist.

That is why my belief in gods is on the negative side of the spectrum. However if you think about belief as a continuum where on one side you have disbelief, smack in the middle no opinion, and on the other side belief where being further to the right you believe more strongly and further to the left you disbelieve more strongly anything in the middle or to the left would be atheism.

From a lowest common denominator perspective without the belief that a god exists the label should be atheist.




00000000000000000-1111111111111111111-222222222222222222222




So if the zeros represent disbelief getting stronger to the left, the ones represent uncertainty leaning one way or the other but still not a belief and the two's represent belief getting stronger to the right then only two would be theists, and everything else an atheist. Agnosticism is in regards to knowledge not belief so isn't represented here and rightly so.

With(theist) / without(Atheist)

Being uncertain in regards to any belief means you do not hold that belief by definition.

Without belief in deities = atheist. I know the word has been used as a pejorative for so long that many do not want that label, but at its simplest it is an accurate description of the god belief of ALL agnostics.

I think of it in a similar way. 1 on the left would be absolute belief of the odds being in favor of any kind of conscious, sentient being in charge of the universe and 10 on the right represents a belief of the odds being astronomically against said being. 5, in the middle, would assume the odds are evenly split.

1------------5-----------10

On that scale, I'd place myself at about 9.9999999.

I.d say the chance of any type of god existing are about equal to the odds of unicorns or gnomes or Santa existing.

I live my life assuming there is no god. But, I cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot say that god, unicorns, gnomes and Santa don't exist. I call myself an atheist. I find the term agnostic distasteful when it's applied to myself.

distasteful or not, you like every human on the planet are agnostic as i see it. i'm certainly not in sole possession of the only human mind on the planet and if the human mind in incapable of knowing anything absolutely then your human mind cannot know.

Well, I am agnostic in regards to some things. I am Gnostic in regards to other things.

I know I exist. Gnostic.
I know I think. Gnostic.
ect ect ect

Some of the religious claim to have direct experience of god. They "know" that god exists.

However it is my opinion that my standard for knowledge is more strict than their own standard for knowledge.

This highlights quite distinctly the differences between belief and knowledge, most especially when you have a proper, rigorous, testable methodology for developing knowledge and withhold belief when you have not met that standard. In regards to topics I have not taken the time to explore the evidence, nor using the methodology for gaining knowledge then I am most certainly agnostic.

However becuase certain definitions of god have testable parameters, and the absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence; certain gods from my knowledge can be examined and I can determine with a high standard they do NOT in fact exist, making me a gnostic atheist in regards to that specific god.

To the idea of a creator without personal attributes, that does not engage with reality after its initial creation, the deistic god, I remain agnostic due to the inability to test, or make predictions regarding what reality would look like with this god.

So becuase the deistic gods universe looks identical to the universe with no gods we cannot pursue any knowledge of such a god, and from that perspective I agree wholly that any intellectually honest person must be agnostic for this specific example of god. HOWEVER I believe that we can basically call that god nature instead of god and thus remove the need to explore that idea at all from anything other than a naturalistic perspective. Why call the universe a god if it had no perspective, no opinion, no will, no desires. Is the creator of the universe a god at all if the creator had no choice in the universes creation? Is a deistic god really deistic if it had choices, personality, and desires? Can we not just call this a mechanism for universe creation?

I do not know.

Very well, I am a unicorn agnostic.

well put. the difference between belief and knowledge lies only in that to know anything one must experience it. to believe only requires faith.