The past ten years of debate amongst nonbelievers has been consumed by this silly back-and-forth of atheists, agnostics, and theists trying to absorb and sever one another.
Oh, now you're just being provocative. Using an Oxford Comma, indeed! I can't discuss things with someone as misguided as you!!
Joke! As if I need to say it...Atheists don't think god exists Yes, which is not necessarily the same as thinking that God doesn't exist, agnostics aren't sure if god exists No, they (and I am one) consider that nothing is known or knowable, but this does not stop them from having a definite opinion either way, and theists think at least one god of any kind exists.
ClarifiedTFY(In antiquity, "atheist" also pejoritively applied to those who did not believe in the
True God, akin to Heretic (one who should know better) or Heathen (one who doesn't
yet know better, but ought to do so with 'our' help).
A person can be an agnostic in conjunction with another option if that describes their beliefs, but don't go contaminating the history of gnosticism by trying to make a complete system by reusing the word now.
Agnosticism is not "against gnosticism", one can be firmly agnostic about the gnosis but subscribe to it anyway. And I'm not reusing the word in any new way, merely using it in the form that Darwin's Bulldog coined it for, a philosophy that has been known for centuries under the 'broad church' of skepticism.
To discuss religion, one needs to know how others see it. I know what others
think they mean, when they (self-?)describe as atheist, and so I need to explain that I (self-)describe atheism as the lack that it is, in me. I am in all the ways explained (and, for new terms, in ways explainable) atheistic, agnostic, reserve the right to be deistic (God/gods don't do anything,
if existing) and, outside of interesting discussions,
extremely apatheistic.