I am an atheist. I don't pray. I don't get up early on Sunday to go to Church. I don't believe in gods, miracles or messiahs. That is not to say that I don't believe that they could exist. No they can, they might; I simply have no way of knowing about them. This philosophy is called agnosticism. So I am an atheist-agnostic.
There are people who say that they are just agnostic (and who often take offence to being bundled with atheists). I do not wish to misrepresent the position of these agnostics but I believe, for the majority, it runs along the lines of :
I am agnostic. I am not a theist because I have no evidence to believe in gods. Conversely I am not an atheist because I have no reason to not believe in gods. Either belief requires knowledge or a predisposition to one side or the other that I do not and could not possess.
In theory this is fine. In practise however this position has always confused for the following reason: from my personal experience it is almost impossible to tell a pure agnostic from an atheist unless you ask them. Agnostics don't pray, don't go to Church and don't believe in gods. For the most part their behaviour is utterly indistinguishable from that of most atheists.
My personal experience if far from perfect, nevertheless I will offer the opinion that if you're going to act like an atheist then why not call yourself one? In behaving like on of us are you not exhibiting a bias towards the atheist's side of the debate? As a true agnostic would you not have to take into account the possibility that gods exist when deciding how to go about your daily life? If you believe this to be wrong (for reasons other than fallacies of my arguments) then are you not siding with the atheists and thereby straying from the path of straight agnosticism?
First blog post!11!!1. Comments and criticisms are appreciated :)