Haydi said:
There is a difference. Basically an atheist denies theism and the existance of god, while an agnostic just doesn't think there is enough proof for any religions, including atheism.
The terms vary though, but I think this basically is the modern usage. At least atheism doesn't simply mean the absence of belief in god.
Correct me if I presented it too simply. When it comes to philosphy, it's always too simple...
Let me first state that, personally, I don't accept today's modern usage of the terms. They're distorted from the original etymologies and therefore ignore logic. Accepted use is, in my eyes, accepted
misuse. The result is a horde of attributions that people associate with the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" despite their fallaciousness, offensiveness, and/or misplacement. The deviation from the clear-cut definitions just makes a mess. So with that said, know that this argument comes from that personal standpoint.
Theism is defined as the belief in deities, and it's a binary concept. If you don't have belief in deities, then you have an absence of belief. Hence "atheism". That does not equate to a denial of their existence, although many atheists also choose that route. Dressed down to its simplest and core meaning, atheism is just having no belief in gods. In that sense, every person is either an atheist or a theist. People like to think there's some "reasonable" middle ground, but there isn't, and such a thought largely derives from a misunderstanding of the terms. You either believe or you don't.
Gnosis is an entirely separate entity from theism. There is nothing about it that specifically pertains to deities. Simply put, gnostics claim certainty whereas agnostics do not. In the context of theism, it's an attributive tag that defines the nature of the belief (or lack thereof).
Gnostic theists claim certainty that a god or gods exist.
Agnostic theists remain uncertain, yet still hold belief.
Gnostic atheists outright deny the existence of gods.
Agnostic atheists can accept the possibility of gods, but think that belief in them is unwarranted.
Now, people can stick to modern usage if they wish. But the accuracy of these terms, purely from an etymology aspect, is undebatable. And from a social standpoint, I vastly prefer them to the Theist-Agnostic-Atheist continuum. Agnosticism has somehow come to carry a softer edge than atheism. There are many people that want to play some kind of safe middle ground with the former when they honestly are a part of the latter. The reason as to why isn't rocket science. The godless have been persecuted heavily throughout time. And while nobody in western civilization is receiving state-sanctioned execution in this day and age for their theistic preferences, social prejudice is still entirely prevalent. It's no wonder people wish to steer clear of associating themselves with something carrying such heavily negative connotations, despite how unjust they are.
"Agnostics are just atheists without balls" - Stephen Colbert
No serious intent behind that last bit, by the way.
