A quote from Herb Silverman which explains atheism quite well.
Many people tell me they wouldn’t mind if I were an agnostic, but that I shouldn’t be so arrogant as to be an atheist.
I used to call myself an agnostic because I could not logically prove
whether a god exists, so I took the agnostic position that the
existence of any god is unknown — and perhaps unknowable. I was without
belief in any gods and thought it highly improbable that any
supernatural beings exist. When I learned that this view is consistent
with atheism, I became an atheist.
So, my “conversion” from agnosticism to atheism was more definitional
than theological. In reality, depending on how terms are defined and
their context, I can accurately call myself an atheist or an agnostic,
as well as a humanist, secular humanist, freethinker, skeptic,
rationalist, infidel, and more.
I’m curious about why people find “atheist” so much more threatening
than “agnostic” when self-described “atheists” and “agnostics” often
hold identical views about deities. As with atheists, agnostics almost
never give equal merit to belief and disbelief. For instance, I can
neither prove nor disprove the following claims.
Claim 1: The universe was created 30 minutes ago and the creator planted false memories in all of us.
Claim 2: Infidels who don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are condemned to burn for eternity in a vat of hot pasta sauce.
I assume we are all “agnostic” about these two hypotheses, but at the
same time pretty certain they are false. (I’d also call myself an
atheist with respect to such creators.) The burden of proof is on the
person making the assertion — as it should be with any supernatural
claim.
