I do not believe in a here after and have donated my body for scientific research.My ashes are to be spread in nature and that suits me just fine. Perhaps my ashes will promote some new life and that will be great.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the God that most theists believe in which is a loving good entity that we should give thanks to and pray to .I believe there may have been a creator that created some level of the known universe but may have ceased to exist. If there is a creator why should I give thanks to it or pray to it ,so I would not put any labels on it.So maybe I am a cross between a atheist and an agnostic

Well, sir, that always appears to be a problem on the surface, but it becomes quite simple once one understands the actual meaning of the word, 'atheist'. When an atheist makes the statement that there is/are no god/gods, they are making a claim, just as the religious make a claim. There is a god. There is no god. When an atheist makes that claim, he/she has taken on the burden of proof. Unfortunately, there is no proof available for either side.

About the actual meaning of the word, 'atheist'. It really just means that one does not accept the god concept. They ... don't ... believe ... in ... god(s). He or she is then not making a claim, just stating a condition of being. If pressed for explanation and they feel it worth responding, they can say that because there is no compelling evidence for a deity they are not obligated to believe there is one.

Now, the 'I don't know if there is or isn't' line is fence-riding, but the 'there's no compelling evidence, so I don't believe' line is declarative without compromising. Of course there is a possibility that there is one, but that possibility is so low as to be reasonably considered nil, thus justifying the lack of belief.

I am quite comfortable with the word 'atheist' because of all this, but the word 'agnostic' bothers me a bit. I don't mind people using it (after all, it is true as well), but it just seems so wishy-washy and uncertain that I avoid it.

I am: Atheist. Evidentialist. Rationalist. Humanist to a degree. That all works well for me. Agnostic does not.

There is no God

Like many others have mentioned already, Atheists don't say that they know a god does not exist. All we say is that we are not convinced that there is one or more gods.

We can say it with 99 percent certainty. However, as the rule goes, you can't prove a negative. If you think there's a little green man in the room, how can we definitively prove that little green man doesn't exist? It's a conundrum.

I can say I know there is no god in the same way I can say there is no Santa, no tooth fairy, no elves, no dragons, no Gandalf, etc. If you can say you know any of those, and any other obviously invented character, aren't real, then you can say it about any gods.

You could assert that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun and there is no currently available means of disproving it. Should I be agnostic in my belief of its existence? Technically, in the most pedantic sense I would be, but I would be wise to live my life as though this teapot does not exist and not waste my resources on it. So it is with the possible existence of a god singular or a host of them. As far as I am concerned, they might as well reside in that teapot.

I cannot even conceive of a universe that required the existence of gods there is only evidence based knowledge that we either know or will come to know at some time in the future.

As Atheist so eloquently stated: Absence of evidence, IS evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence where evidence should be, IS evidence of absence.

I'm agnostic because I don't think there is any way of knowing if there is some sort of higher power or after life that exists. I don't believe any of the current religions are correct (or at least I hope not, not a big fan of God myself) and I just, don't think we could ever prove it for sure either way. Just my opinion though.

I like Michael Gilbert's comment that there is not necessarily much difference between the two labels. I use and answer to both, though I admit a preference for Agnostic. I am an Atheist, because I see no credible evidence for believing in God and therefore don't believe. (I define God in this sense as a unified consciousness behind the force(s) running the cosmos.) I am an Agnostic because I realize in a global sense the existanse or non-existance of something so intangible as God is ultimately probably unprovable, and it is therefore a waste of effort trying to disprove it and is probably good to be honest enough to acknowedge that reality. I agree with the Neil DeGrasse Tyson school of Agnosticism. ????

I identified as agnostic for years for this very reason, I thought it was just as presumptuous to say that there is no god, as to say that there is. But I do now identify as atheist, because I don't believe in any of the man-made religions, or the gods that they have created. I do readily admit that I don't know what might be out there in the universe, it is a big place, and there could very well be some higher form of life. But if there is, I feel fairly certain that it doesn't have anything to do with all the ridiculous fairy tales, superstitions, and religious nonsense that humans have invented.

I am not sure that after death anything will be known. Is there an after life at all with or without a God.

Personally I consider myself agnostic because I am not sure about whether there is a God or not. But I do not believe in the religious books. If there is a God that passed on his word in these books I am not going to be worshiping it. I have not found one religious book that feels like it wasn't written by humans.

I am not familiar with AGNOSTIC or ATHEIST. I have studied GNOSIS "Secret Knowledge" which teaches that there are many GODS...that which is capable of giving life, sustaining life and taking life is worthy of being called a GOD. I have come to believe every living creature is a result of that which is capable of giving life, sustaining life and taking life be it them "THE ELEMENTS of NATURE". Horus the "SUN" evidenced by the Doves, Sut the "MOON" evidenced by the Stars, Seb the "GREAT MOTHER EARTH" evidenced by Food and Renewal, Num the "WATER" evidenced by the fish, Khabsenuf the "FIRE" evidenced by the Flames, Shu the "WIND" evidenced by the panting lion and the "BLOOD" evidenced by the flesh. That which is not created by man, yet evidenced in our everyday life. It is only when "NATURE" rises up against mankind that they will call upon "her" by name. "Her" the nourisher.I

I view Agnostics as people who have taken the stance of "I have no evidence of a god or spirituality/supernatural things, but I don't have evidence that they don't exist so I just say I don't know". Atheists on the other hand fall back on more of the scientific method default position of saying that God or Gods don't exist until we have some kind of observable evidence of their existence. Atheists can answer questions posed to them by Theists by saying "I don't know" without being considered Agnostic because they still lean towards the idea that God does not exist while as Agnostics are more of the mind of maybe they exist, maybe they don't. It's not a huge difference because any true Atheist would immediately no longer be an Atheist as soon as you could provide credible evidence for a God.

Well, I see that as the problem as to what people think atheists believe. The definition is "lack of belief in god(s)". It's not saying that an atheist makes a claim that there is no god(s), only that they lack belief in any. I look at it as them denying a fundamentalists claim that a god does exist. Making the claim that a god(s) doesn't exists always leads to the, "Well, PROVE He doesn't exist", and I know we've all been down that alley. As we all know, the scientific method must first prove a god exists before we can disprove gods exist. Can't prove a negative because lack of source and evidence.

As far as atheist vs. agnostic, I always say we all play in the same ballpark when it comes to our view on religion, we just play different positions in our personal beliefs. No reason we shouldn't all get along, as we do share a common core, but I have run into the militant atheist that have called me all kinds of names for being agnostic. I feel it's a childish approach, considering agnostics are actually an atheists best ally. When we start to divide each other that way, we're no better than the thousands of denominations of religions - each thinking they're the chosen ones and all else are wrong. Agnostics and atheists should be above that nonsense and quit worrying about the position you play on the field.

Just my two cents.