The trouble with labels of any sort is they’re limiting and fraught with the foibles of language which is why I refuse to label myself as either atheist or agnostic. I believe nothing. Belief is for fools.

I think most agnostics are still living under the regime of religious oppression and most structure their arguments with just one divine dude in mind. All people who believe in gods are agnostics since they cannot produce any proof of the existence of their particular gods or goddesses. I usually state that I am nothing and that even the question of the existence of any divine authority even remotely resembling any god as imagined by humans is of no relevance to me. When specifically asked about my belief in "god" which is more likely in a western influenced society, I just reply by the question: "Which ones do you have in mind?"
Hinduism offers 33 million. I would challenge anyone to know them all.
I am absolutely certain that there is no god that fits any human description. I will even say I know that there are none. Bring me the proof that would stand up in a criminal trial: Beyond reasonable doubt!

The problem with theists in their understanding of agnosticism, and also many agnostics today is they misunderstand a term as coined by the person who actually originated it, and apply it to themselves or others for reasons he never contemplated.

Huxley's contention is essentially that supernatural beings and realms are non-falsifiable and therefore you can't take a supportable knowledge claim one way or the other. So it's not "I'm not sure, maybe there could be a god". It's "there's no way to know, inherently". Agnosticism is the null position about knowledge of deities.

Atheism on the other hand doesn't address the knowledge position, only the belief position; it's the null belief position about deities. Namely, that there is no valid evidence to support belief, because belief must inherently based on a preponderance of evidence, of which in the case of deities (much less the SPECIFIC one many have in mind) not just a little, but no evidence, is available.

It's ironic that the rigid truth claim and the unsupportable belief claim comes from theism, and they accuse atheists of being close-minded and having faith. Project much?

I like Bertrand Russell's argument, that if I ask you to believe in a Chinese porcelain teapot orbiting the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, you would rightly ask me for proof. Similarly, if you ask me to believe in God, I will ask you for proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. And so because God cannot be proven, I say that atheism is the only reasonable stance.

Agnosticism is a weakly reasoned stance which is based on appeasement of all sides. It leads you to saying "I don't know" about all kinds of absurdities like Russell's teapot or the flying spaghetti monster, where in fact you should just rule these things out and say "I believe these things do not exist", with the understanding that if further evidence comes to light you may change your opinion.

Do you believe in gravity?

The level to which so many people twist themselves to "define" atheists and agnostics has become patently ridiculous.
As far as I'm concerned, atheists don't believe in any gods.
Agnostics don't know one way or the other.
Anti-theists are against all religion.
I am an atheist and an anti-theist.
I don't believe any gods have ever existed in reality, and ALL religion is evil.
It's not that hard.

Atheism is a knowledge system. No one can prove a positive, therefore it is not true. I know there is not one billion $ in my bank account. Therefore it does not exist in my bank account. Though that I do wish lol.

Oh, it's a belief system, I don't argue that. What I argue is that it is not a RELIGION.

Atheism doesn't require faith. Faith is believing without evidence. There is no evidence of gods; therefore I don't believe in them. There is no faith required.

Next the lack of evidence of gods' existence is not equivalent to the lack of evidence for nonexistence. The burden of proof is entirely on the believers, and they have been told for centuries that doubt is a sin, because at least superficially, they can use that as an argument against evidence.

IMO, depending on the individual, it would or could depend on how god is defined. In other words, in speaking to anyone, I would ask, what do they mean by a god? Where is their god? How does their god operate? Does their god enter into the lives of humans? If yes, Ask for the evidence that proves their assertion and so forth. Please define what it means to believe in god. If they give a definition, you can then ask questions like what experience of living or existence leads them to believe or accept their definition of god as an acceptable answer. The typical answer given by christians is that god is all knowing, all powerful and benevolent. Just the slightest observation and or knowledge of history renders this definition completely unjustified and absurd and I have heard it said also an insult to those lost in the bloodbath of history.

Not collecting stamps,... is not a hobby.

Insisting that atheism is a belief system is like saying "off" is a TV station.

You say potato I say patahto.

You are so wrong. I don't believe in god because I see no evidence to the contrary. The history of the species, religion, the globe or anything else has nothing to do with it. Furthermore I see no evidence supporting your assumptions. How do you know what goes on in my mind?

The fact humans invent gods is not a theory. A lifetime Atheist, I’ve never needed ‘faith’ to understand or uphold reality… Seems you’re trying hard to make something of nothing … that’s what the religious folks do ..while the Agnostics sit back and watch

Pier, if I obtain ‘level eight’ status, I will decline the ‘Agnostic’ labeled T-shirt, to save them money ..and keep me pure

We need to define the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' - and this, I admit, is a contentious issue that many atheists have long arguments about.

My OWN definitions are:-

BELIEF: something you personally accept as being true. WHY you accept it as true is an entirely separate matter - but if there is something that you personally accept to be true then that is a BELIEF that you hold.

I BELIEVE that evolution is a genuine process by which forms of life gradually change in response to their environment and lifestyle.This 'belief' is based on vast amounts of evidence - DNA, fossil records, direct observation, etc - that evidence is WHY I 'believe'. Why I accept this concept as being truth.

FAITH: is belief WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Faith is, in effect, when you say 'I believe X!' and when someone asks you why, your only real response is 'Because I DO!'

Do I 'believe' the words of the bible are mythical bullshit of the first order? ABSOLUTELY I DO! And with good, evidence-based reason. The words of the bible are inherently incompatible with so much that we can see, and measure, and experimentally test - so yes, that is a concept I personally accept to be fact.

Do I 'believe' that the concept of god is equally mythical? CERTAINLY! To believe in god forces you to believe in all sorts of other stuff - such as the 'telepathy' inherent in prayer, the corruption of the concept of cause and effect, and so on - which is completely at varience with our observations of the world around us.

So yes, my atheism is a 'belief system' because it is a personal acceptance of certain things being true - but it is belief BASED ON OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE.

It is BELIEF, but it is not FAITH.

The 13 year old me would have loved this

I suppose you could call it a "non-belief system," if you really wanted to. But I'd just not bother with the word "system" at all. That's misleading.

Events in history and in the world disprove the existence of a loving creator super being that needs everyones love can create asteroids and cosmic rays, but ignores babies being thrown into ovens back in Europe, allows perpetrators of same to escape with the help of his "servants" in Rome, or has individuals that try apply "free will" to things like pediatric bone cancer, or gigantic tsunamis, to explain why no miracles save us. Then youd also get a "oh ye of little faith" or something thrown at you, when you bring up yaweh's blind spot for starving african children. That he never helps.

Surely, atheism is based upon empirical observation and requires no faith. For example, observing the close resemblance between related species and diverse species sharing a common environment, or the wide range of dog breeds that can be produced by selective breeding, is evidence of a process of gradual change or evolution. Faith requires explaining causation by forming theoretical and imagined connections that cannot be proved - such as the belief that all forms of life were shaped by the hand of the Almighty - in defiance of accumulated evidence that offers a conflicting and more rational explanation.

Many confuse atheist with anti-theist.

An atheist by definition merely rejects belief in gods until proven otherwise. There's no positive assertions and therefore no burden of proof.

People who definitively assert there are no "gods" make an assertion and set themselves up for people who demand proof for any assertion. I've found several "atheists" like this and they're generally toxic bc they're as rigid and assertive as many theists.

People who want solid proof of something before believing in it and condemn people and organizations that mess with our lives based on unsubstantiated fantasies don't have a belief system, we merely don't believe something unless it's been proven and are intolerant of whimsy screwing with out lives.

I'm not waiting around thinking Baal, unicorns or whores with a heart of gold exist but if given proof I'll believe in but not worship any of the above.

My way of seeing is that I am agnostic just to be strictly logical.
I am a de-facto atheist, I make my decisions as there is no god.
If there is a god it makes itself undetectable by not interacting at all with reality or interact and cover its tracks by adjusting and compensating in a way to let a white noise behind its actions.
But you can't prove a negative so, a being out of objective reality that does not interfeer in a detectable way is a (useless) possibility, the same thing as the garage dragon.
So for me yes, Atheism is belief in the sole existance of the objective reality, agnosticism is "do not pretend to answer a question that cannot be answered" but until any evidence is shown, act as if a god is inexistent (because if you can't detect anything, even if it exists there is no way to know what it wants).

NO! We can think for ourselves.

Yes, atheism is a belief system. I have no evidence of your supposed deity. Neither you nor I can produce any evidence. That's it. End of the belief system. No meetings to attend either.