A theist takes a question (currently) without an answer and says "God did it!" An atheist honestly says "I don't know, but maybe we will figure it out in time. Like, for instance, why is the Planck constant what it is? I don't know, but perhaps, in time, someone will figure it out.

@MPendergraft Sorry, I thought to that argument an atheist would say God DIDN'T do it

@Geoffrey51 Yeah the "I don't know" thing is about causes of whatever happens, so, as an atheist, I can say "I don't know." Whereas, the theist is often obligated to give a god the credit - since the things left for him are becoming so few and far between, they have to get credit where they can. It tends to bring into conversations that initially have nothing to do with it. Very annoying if you live in the Bible belt.

@MPendergraft I can't imagine, it must be intellectually stifling!

No. Atheism is about belief, not knowledge.

Properly speaking an agnostic doesn't claim they don't know; they claim they CAN'T know.

An theists simply lacks belief because belief isn't substantiated and justified. Or more exactly, isn't substantiatable or justifiable. Which is why agnosticism and atheism are connected in that regard. One tends to lead to the other, at least if your position is well-considered and thought through. Most atheists ARE agnostics, according to how Huxley, who invented the term "agnostic" meant it.

@mordant I don't give flying rat's ass what Huxley had to say about anything.
I KNOW there are no gods.
Unless and until credible and verifiable evidence to contrary is presented, there is no reason for me to alter my position.

@KKGator That's fine. I have no particular reverence for Huxley, I only consider him the originator of "agnostic" and therefore he gets to define it, whether or not I agree with it. As such I consider some modern agnostics to not be faithful to that ... making them something other than an agnostic because they make it a personal uncertainty rather than a universal statement of info that's unobtanium. I would say someone who "isn't sure" is simply someone who sees the preponderance of evidence for gods at somewhere around 50%. To me that's not a considered view, but it's a view. Just not an agnostic one.

As for "knowing" there are no gods, it depends on your definition of "knowing". I think gods incredibly unlikely, so vanishingly unlikely that the semantic shortcut "there are no gods" (or, from a theist perspective, "your god doesn't exist" ) would be entirely fine, but for the fractious topic at hand. Because a supernatural god detectible only by the credulous device of religious faith is not disprovable philosophically, then I must take up the philosophically defensible position. This is not that I know there are no gods, but that there's no basis to afford belief concerning the matter.

However I know and respect that you and others are willing in effect to say "fuck it, there is no god, deal with it". I understand the sentiment, I just don't know how to defend it philosophically. And I don't want to give theists yet another opening to deflect from substantive debate by claiming I'm "arrogantly" claiming to prove a negative.