Are most atheists really agnostics?

[harvey1]

It seems to me that the majority of atheists are improperly classified. Most atheists are really agnostic. When pushed to the point to where they are asked to provide strong evidence to support their view that God does not exist, they come back with an agnostic stance, viz. "I do not think theism can provide strong enough evidence to show that God exists." Some atheists are misclassified into a pantheistic view where they believe that God are laws of nature that guide the universe according to some unifying principles.

So, are there reasons to think that most atheists are really improperly classified agnostics?

[harvey1]

Juliod,

I admire your gusto! Of course, strong atheism is a very difficult position to defend. Afterall, you must show it is impossible for God to exist. Unfortunately you have not participated much in the forums that address this issue, so it is difficult for me to know why you have come to this conclusion. If you want to create a thread that provides this smoking gun proof of God's non-existence, I would more than happy respond to it.

[Galphanore]

It seems to me that the majority of atheists are improperly classified. Most atheists are really agnostic. When pushed to the point to where they are asked to provide strong evidence to support their view that God does not exist, they come back with an agnostic stance, viz. "I do not think theism can provide strong enough evidence to show that God exists." Some atheists are misclassified into a pantheistic view where they believe that God are laws of nature that guide the universe according to some unifying principles.

So, are there reasons to think that most atheists are really improperly classified agnostics?

Atheism is the absence of belief in god. I do not believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. Saying I do not believe in god is no more of a strong stance that something cannot exist then saying I do not believe in three tusked elephants is. It is, of course, possible that either of those things exists. Evidence for them is all that is lacking. Provide it and I will no longer be an atheist. Why go out of my way to make the claim that we cannot know there is no god (agnosticism) when there is no evidence for a god? Would it not be more reasonable to simply say "I do not believe in god."? It removes much of the confusion inherent in a broad interpretation of the term agnosticism.

That, and true agnosticism seems too much of a faith based position to me. It is the belief that there is something inherently unknowable about god. That is a vast artificial inflation of the probability of it's existence and it takes a good deal of faith to seriously hold that position. Why assume that something is unknowable instead of simply unknown? I'd just rather not have my position rely on that much faith.