Why I'm Not an Agnostic

There seems to be an erroneous wave of misinformation that agnosticism stands as some sort of middle ground for the individuals that aren't comfortable enough with just flat-out declaring that they believe in or don't believe in god. I think, more often than not, the attire of "agnostic" is adorned because of (in part or in whole to) prior misconceptions of atheism and theism.

Even further, I'm certain that a fair number are unaware that it's possible to be atheistic or theistic and agnostic at the same time. The agnostic atheist, which is my technical position, is the atheist that disbelieves in god(s) but upholds the possibility that god(s) may still be discovered and known, that is to say that I don't believe in god as of yet, but I don't actually know if one does or doesn't in fact exist. Just apply it to any other case aside from god's existence and it makes further sense. E.g., not believing in aliens, but not actually knowing if they're really out there or not. An atheist that tries to seriously disprove the existence of god puts him or herself in an extremely vulnerable and somewhat erroneous position. A more seasoned atheist that knows a bit better will never shoulder the burden of proof by trying to disprove a negative, but simply demand and wait on proof from the opposing viewpoint and debunk any fallacious claims when stated. You don't have to believe in aliens, leprechauns, Nessie, Bigfoot, and ghosts. With only anecdotal conjectures from the believers, the skepticism is quite reasonable, if not fully expected. It's quite unreasonable to say those things can't possibly exist or try to disprove them because you've never witnessed them for yourself, though.

Meanwhile, the agnostic theist is just the opposite. A belief in god doesn't necessarily equate to an assertion that god exists. Granted, most theists do make drastic assertions that an atheist nearly makes a profession out of debunking and those are perhaps the most common circumstances that affirms a debate between the two. There are some theists, however, that believe in a god but openly state that they can't confirm in whether or not they actually know if a god exists. If you go as far as making a claim, you're absolutely obligated to support and defend it with proof for as long as you hold it.

Atheism and theism in and of themselves are not claims of knowledge, but belief (or lack thereof) based on evidence reviewed thus far or an absence of evidence that then warrants no reason to believe. Having or not having a belief in something is fine. However, when you state that there is or is no god you sustain a truth and then, Lucy, you got some splain' to do.

One can maintain a middle ground between atheism and theism if neither side is found to be too appealing, but agnosticism is not that middle ground. If anything, it should be used in the context of an adjective preceding a declaration of belief. God isn't a matter of knowing or not knowing, proving or disproving, but it's a matter of what you believe or what you don't believe. Of course you probably can't prove or disprove god. I can't say there is no god, but I'm still an atheist because it's not my intent to say that to begin with. As an atheist, I'm saying that I don't believe in god, not that there isn't one. Virtually no one truly does know and in that we're all agnostic so calling yourself as such is redundant, if not altogether useless. That's why some people just simply call themselves atheist or theist without the word "agnostic" preceding because it's almost unnecessary. It boils down to asking yourself which one are you more inclined to from what you've assessed so far. You can always change your mind when new evidence emerges, naturally. But as of this current point in time, the fact that you don't know is expected and unrelated to believing in something, so side with what you find more convincing. I've chosen which side is more convincing to me, and I'm not selling myself and the potential of my nature short by saying that any brand of knowledge is hopelessly out of my grasp. And that's why I'm not an agnostic.