I will argue that. atheism is not the belief there is/are no god(s). It is the lack of belief. Agnosticism is something else, such as "I want to believe in God."
There are weak, strong, implicit, explicit and probably a hell of a lot more individual interpretations to atheist, so... I won't really argue. In principle, it is about rejecting theistic belief, but since it was used so much against any belief in gods, it's fair to say that as well.
However, agnosticism is poorly represented by your comment. It is about a lack of knowledge, by any of the different variations.
Agnosticism is the belief that knowing whether God does or doesn't exist is unknowable, its basically pleading that humans are too stupid and ignorant to figure anything out...
...or that our energy could be better spent in other areas, such as attending to and sorting out the problems and suffering we really do have observably here, rather than wondering if it's due to some deity's wrath/plan/whatever...
...and how humans can be respond in light of that... lends itself to humanism quite well...
Heh, I have to disagree slightly, even though I prefer that definition.
It falls down to the same probability problem. Better put, it could be knowable in a condition change, but it can't be known now, and any claim without knowledge is infinitely improbable, and therefore infinitely improbable to become knowledgeable.
But, yes, either way :P The only reason I say this at all is because the three main forms of agnosticism depend on how far you go down that logic chain - it could be knowable (ie: others may know), infinitely improbable (ie: others do not know), infinitely improbable to ever know (ie: no one will ever know).
Definition wise, I can't really argue. People just don't tend to like using definitions when labelling
Yeah that PT, as well as that virtually as soon as a concept is published and a word coined for it, people make their own versions of it anyway and then carry on using the same word for them all. This results in a hella lotta cross-denominational/cross-faith misunderstanding...
ie as soon as a specific thing is given a specific name, that word begins to broaden in its scope of definition until it becomes eventually a general term for something containing many other specific terms... and on...
Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!
"When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must
I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen
Religion can be based on superstition, but it doesn't have to be. Superstition is generally more trusting in concepts like chance and magic and relies on willful ignorance of cause and effect. You can empirically prove that an Ouija board is full of shit, but you obviously can't prove that God doesn't exist. Having said that, Christians aren't necessarily using scientific evidence to back up their disbelief in new age stuff and luck and chance. Those things are just against their worldview.