Slight flaw on the declaration that agnosticism is uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates an agreement that a hypothesis or conjecture is a possibility.

Agnosticism is not uncertainty because it does not consider the question viable.

Uncertainty is halfway to acceptance. Agnostic says I don’t know the validity of this.

I agree when you say that there’s no absolute certainty for mere human intelligence. By disbelief, do you mean belief that an assertion is false, or do just mean that you are not convinced by the evidence you’ve seen so far?

“And there isn’t”? Which assertion are you referring to? There’s all kind of evidence for some kind of a God concept. You might not be persuaded by that evidence, but evidence there is.

If I want to persuade someone of something, then yes, it is up to me to point to evidence and logic, but in general there is no “burden of proof”. That pseudo-legal term has no place in ordinary discourse. Whether or not an assertion is couched in positive or negative terms has nothing to do with it.

What is wrong with saying that you don’t know—that you are agnostic? You yourself said that there’s no absolute certainty. Now you are saying that there IS absolute certainty—that there’s only one conclusion that fits the evidence, and that that evidence is universal for everyone.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you suggest. Some of those web sites will lead you astray.

Just because disbelief is a chosen default position, doesn't make it right.

Just because people centuries ago didnt have enough evidence that the earth orbited the Sun doesn't make them right to believe or disbelieve based on lack of evidence.

The proper position is "I don't know". That's agnosticism. And it's the best way to not fool yourself into taking a position without complete evidence.

Agnosticism is disbelief. Agnosticism is honesty. To claim that agnosticism is nothing more than closet atheism is narrow-minded arrogant militant atheistic dishonesty and intolerance. It's just another way of claiming that everyone must see the universe as I do, they just won't admit it. There is, of course, grounds for suspicion as any honest scientist will tell you. The suspicion is that, first of all, science is not omniscient and hasn't discovered everything significant yet, and secondly and even more importantly, the empirical scientific method is not omnipotent and hence not the only possible manner of discovering everything in the universe. It is refusing to make a god out of science. To deny this is also to deny Agnostic Atheism, which is what most atheists actually are, though there are different ways of being an atheist just as there are different ways of being an agnostic. Intolerance of different viewpoints is not the way to truth, but rather a serious impediment to truth.

I don't agree that agnosticism is a "weasel" word. I am agnostic because I don't know for sure whether god(s) exist(s), and I am atheist because I do not believe they do. I do agree that non-belief is the default position and the likelihood of any deity's existence is infinitesimal, but if faced with overwhelming evidence of a divine entity, I could no longer disbelieve. I still wouldn't worship it, but I'd have to accept that it's real.

God is a lot like sasquatch in that area.

Another atheist who is dead wrong
Atheist and theism are two sides of the same coin.
Without firm evidence either way--for the existence or non-existence of "god"--the "default position" is uncertainty, open-mindedness, and an inquisitive mind.
Both atheists AND theists have closed minds. They both claim to "know" the truth, when in fact they KNOW precisely nothing.
NOW do you get it?

There is nothing to make me think there is a god, or gods, but I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist. I do not add the "agnostic" because I am uncertain, or on the fence, but because it is arrogant to make a claim of absolute knowledge; and agnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

Science cannot, and does not, make the claim that there definitely are no gods--it does not care. It simply wants evidence if a claim is made; and, so far, none has been provided.

Science shows us that no god/consciousness is necessary for the universe to behave as it does and that there is no reason to think that one (or more) does exist. But, again, it cannot state there are no gods without having to provide evidence for that claim.

That is exactly why I call myself TheoryNumber3. There is no viable alternate theory to explain all of this. Until there is, I will hold my position as a weasly agnostic . I'm pretty certain there is no god as currently offered, but if not, then what?

However, according to @OldMetalHead's chart below, I guess I am a de-facto atheist.

I agree agnosticism is uncertainty, but there are varying degrees of that. I don't agree it's a "weasel word" for atheism.

Atheist: I don't believe in any gods.
Agnostic: I don't know if there are any gods.

Both describe me. Personally, I haven't met a god that I would want to believe in. Since gods are figments of the imagination, they can only be believed in or not believed in.

By definition of being supernatural, Gods aren't real in the natural world. They can only exist in the minds of believers. While I'm 99.9% sure there are no gods, there is 1 tenth of a percent I will reserve for the unknowable.

If there are gods who have chosen not to make themselves known to me, then that is likely how they want it. So I will carry on with the life best I can by using the wisdom I've gained by real experiences in the natural world and the insights shared by the myriad other real people before me who have shared their wisdom through their writing, the arts, and just by example for living a good life. That's all I need.

Is there something more than simple nature? I don't know, but just living in harmony with nature and natural consequences is good enough for me.

Agnosticism in general is the view that absolute knowledge is impossible. Agnosticism in the context of spiritualism and Theism means we acknowledge there is no proof either way and so knowledge in this case is not possible. We leave it at that. We neither belive nor disbelieve. We accept it for what it is.

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:
Agnostic: We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: without knowledge
Atheist: There ain't no all powerful invisible critters: there is no reliable proof of such a being.

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... 'Atheist' is a word created by theists to identify their 'enemies.' No words for not believing in santa, unicorns, astrology,...

I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

Agnostic: the word is being used inappropriately which is based on Huxley's definition. See: Agnostos Theos - Unknown God in Wikipedia. Those agnostics believed in an unknown (unrevealed) god so they weren't atheists or agnostic atheists.

There is an absolute certainty that Human Intelligence WILL expand exponentially as our understanding of the things around us continues to grow.
as to religion and belief that there is a God/Sky Daddy Being,then I, for one, AM absolutely 100% certain that none has ever existed NOR ever will truly exist since ALL religions, in my opinion, are MERELY the INVENTIONS created in the minds of Humans and EXPLOITED by those who see those INVENTIONS as a means to enhance their lives and living standards.
I have had almost 60 years of life to ponder and consider the 'Is there a God question,' I have done it by using logic, reasoning and often intensive studying and the result has ALWAYS been exactly the same, i.e. THERE IS no God/Sky Daddy.

Labels, hate them, I just don't believe in bs.

I predict this discussion will go nowhere as most of these ‘what words mean’ discussions do.

If you are going to cite Foolquest, then please cite the author you are referring to as there doesn’t seem to be any academic references at that site.

Agnosticism is nothing of the kind! You will find that most agnostics don’t care one way or the other. They don’t even know they are agnostic.

They are more interested in getting on with their life, raising their families, pursuing their careers so forth.

“Without good evidence” the default is “I don’t know” Disbelief before experimentation will automatically draw experimental bias.

The spirit of exploration is belief or conjecture which are the first steps in creating a hypothesis.

Do people really talk like this? I'm pretty sure I'd get punched in the mouth if I said "weasel word" out loud at home.
Slow your roll there, friend. Let the others catch up huh?

FYI: Never heard of the website, "FoolQuest", so here is their claim about thrmselves:

FoolQuest.com is the website dedicated towards collaborative social engineering of new and better alternatives in how we lead our lives, anything conceivably more honest, congenial, user-friendly and rewarding in human existence. This ensues largely in accord with a sweeping condemnation of the range of conventionally oppressive life options, very much including religion. But religion is ever more largely supplanted with all manner of dangerous and no less heteronymous secular ideological substitutes likewise receiving all due merciless scrutiny herein. What remains is that when any or other belief, let alone emotional dependency thereupon, is promulgated and embraced as any sort of moral obligation, via by Divine commandment or else by whatever secular ideological substitute or purpose, thereby then is constrained not only free expression but even private thought, let alone honest open minded investigation. For there can be no other values without truthfulness first.

[foolquest.com]?

You need to read Thomas Huxley's (coiner of the word agnostic) information, even on Wikipedia. He simply said that without evidence one can not know something. For example, in the absence of evidence for either the existence or not existence of a supreme being, one can not know whether such a being exists or does not exist. And, yes, if one defined post modern atheism as not believing in a supreme being, we agnostics are atheists. In fact we are the most definite of non-believers.

However, the agnostic philosophy is not confined to the existence or non-existence of a supreme being, but applies to all knowledge. For example, scientists are agnostic about what happened before the Big Bang.

To give people the idea that science always produces positive results would be wrong . Yes you have to have positive ways of thinking that helps one get over disappointments and even catastrophes. Then taking it to the extreme leaves science open to criticism if it constantly raises expectations. Instead scientists (and everyone) learn from their mistakes.

I would prefer to say that science maximizes certainty always but does it in stages upon which a a fair number of scientist professionals agree which then forms a platform on which to build other discoveries advances in applications.

I think "And agnosticism is a weasel word for atheism." is wrong. Atheism is a single fact that is true of each separate person that says it is them, but is one dimensional in that a whole lot of other concepts are linked to it and we would like to know more about these persons.

Have your beliefs developed beyond atheism? If so you may be in the right place. I invite you to think more about the true meaning of science.