The article covers the false choice that is sometimes presented between being an unbelieving atheist and an unknowing agnostic. Agnosticism isn't fence sitting or a middle ground between atheism and theism. Agnosticism isn't a secular refusal to weigh in on the existence or nonexistence of gods. Agnosticism says knowledge is the important consideration and the correct conclusion about knowledge is that we don't know. We could know in the future, we may never find the knowledge, or the first cause of the Universe could be completely beyond our capabilities as an unknowable concept.
Courtney wrote:
Of course, not everyone who identifies as an agnostic will claim to be a theist or atheist, but all agnostics are one of these two. They either have an active belief in a god or they do not and if they do not, whether these people like it or not, they are atheist. This is the definition of the word: no belief in god. It makes no difference if you claim knowledge of zero gods or not. Atheism is NOT the claim there are no gods.
I didn't understand this at first but I've grown to better understand it and accept it. It's a strong atheist or anti-theist who would claim there are no gods. The more common weak atheist simply rejects the gods as unproven. That's why the flipside of this is that atheists are also very often agnostics whether they like it or not. That's fine and we all gravitate towards the labels that make the most sense for how we want to portray our viewpoints about theism.
