In 2018, Scientific American published an article titled “The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising,” which looked at the rising number of Americans who don’t identify with any religion. In 2018, a survey done by the Pew Research Center found 34 to 36 percent of millennials identify as atheist, agnostic, or just “nothing in particular."
Question 1: What differences are there between agnostics and atheists?
Question 2: How many types of agnostics and atheists exist?
Agnosticism is irrelevant. I find that many people who define themselves as agnostic are simply holding on to a hope that "something is out there," without evidence, and using the excuse that they don't know.
A god that tried to hold you accountable for not believing in it without giving you evidence of its existence would be very stupid.
Everyone is agnostic, including theists. They, like everyone else, DO NOT KNOW definitively if a god exists, that is why agnosticism is irrelevant.
Theist: theist = belief in god
Agnostic: a = without; gnostic = knowledge
Atheist: a = without; theist = belief in god
In order to know, you must have knowledge, in order to have knowledge, you must have evidence. Believers simply believe without evidence producing knowledge. An atheist accepts knowledge that evidence produces. Theists have NOT produced any evidence for gods.
This is why atheists demand proof in order to obtain knowledge and theists demand belief in order to sustain their faith.
A god is not defined by reality or existence, believers make the assertion that it is, the god makes no assertion whether it exists or not, it is therefore the believer who must then prove the assertions they make.
There have been innumerable myths over the centuries that are no more real or relevant than they were when the first fool believed the idiot who invented them, it would be foolish to hold onto a false legitimacy of a god until it has been proven, have the believer prove their nonsense or "truth" with evidence first. There would be no need to believe, just the acceptance of evidence.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I can't "know" for certain about all possibilities of any type of a 'god', but I don't "believe" in any of the definitions/positions I've encountered to this point.
I have to concur w/ @Tejas below (& that doesn't happen often!)
@Word , just below, well, I don't know what he's on about. Most thinking atheists openly state that if proof of any god were actually presented they would obviously not be an atheist about that god any more. Now, whether we would worship that creature is an entirely different matter. & his definition on agnosticism seems off to me, too. We lack the knowledge, & maybe the ability, to "know/prove" a god now, that does not say anything about the potential future. Our tools & understanding may be "new & improved"!
Despite all fancy arguments in support of agnosticism, I have never felt that it is a position but really a non position.
If someone asks me, 'Do you believe in leprechauns?' and I reply 'Yes, because I just believe they exist", then it's a position, albeit not a position based on fact. If I reply, "No, I don't, because no evidence of leprechauns exists" that's also a position and one based on evidence or rather a total lack of it. But if they reply, "well I don't know, and maybe it's impossible to know, and maybe they exist but I can't say either way," then to me that's not a position but a non position since it just means "I don't know". If someone actually said to me, "I don't reject the possibility of leprechauns so I have to say I don't know" I would think that odd and strange given that no evidence exists. I find the same thing is true when people say this about gods.
I also have never heard a convincing reply from any agnostic when I ask the question, as Bertrand Russell did, 'Are you EQUALLY agnostic about ALL gods? Are you as agnostic about the God Apollo as you are about your culture god, for example the Christian god? " If, after finally admitting that, as an agnostic you are not, then what IS your view of all those other gods? Defacto atheism, I would suggest. Is that logical consistency?
Agnosticism is theism lite.
One cannot be agnostic and claim to be atheist, it is like one claiming to be a probably dead, but you're not actually sure you are dead you are open to being proven right or wrong either way.
It is a very wish washy expression when used in relation to religious epistemology.
If you are alive you are not dead, if you think there might be a god, you are not atheist.
An atheist can only at worst acknowledge that he or she is open to actual evidence of a being that some might acknowledge as a god. This still would not, however, prove the existence of or even the possibility of a god or gods as defined in most "holy books" only the possibility of something that pretended to be such at some point in the past.
The whole concept of the Judeo-Christian definition of god is a logical impossibility