That's interesting, Because the definition of atheism that I am aware of, and correct if I'm wrong is stated as the following:
"The theory or belief that God does not exist."
A (not/without) theism (belief in god/God/gods)
An atheist is someone who isn't a theist.
Wikipedia lends us three definitions as well: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Most here fall under the first definition from the wiki. "Atheism is, [...], the [casting off, discarding]
of belief in the existence of deities."
The literal definition of agnosticism:
a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"
A (not/without) gnostic (knowledge)
A gnostic is someone who claims to have (often infallible) knowledge on a matter, whereas an agnostic does not make that claim.
I guess what you're saying is to be an agnostic atheist is to believe that there is not a God, but also believe there is no way to prove it either way? Correct me if I am wrong in this...
. Enough lack
of evidence has piled up that I can claim confidence when I say no god, God, or gods exist. There still exists the possibility that proof will come out in favor of a god, but it has not yet happened. However - and this addresses the following as well...
Now explain to me why you don't have to prove to me that a certain God does not exist...
A negative cannot truly be proven. Especially one where the positive is either ill-defined or defined in such a way as to be beyond reach.
For example, I will propose an invisible blue Alaskan elephant is standing 100 yards away. The elephant, named Bob, is invisible, intangible
, from Alaska, and blue. Bob has been following you around for the past three years. And given my definition of him, you would be unable to disprove his existence.
In most cases, proving a negative (the lack of something, like a god or Bob) is a logical absurdity. Thus why those who have the positive claim ("God does
exist" or "Bob does
exist") must be the ones who provide the proof.
Even something simple, like proving there is no apple in a fridge, is considered a logical absurdity. Not being able to find the apple could simply mean you didn't look in the correct place. Thus it is far easier for the person who claims there is
an apple in the fridge to point it out, proving such.
Thus no contradiction when I say I am an agnostic atheist. While I claim a high degree of certainty that no gods exist (atheist), I admit the possibility still exists (agnostic), and await evidence that can prove it (rationalist)