I'm an atheist. I don't believe any gods have EVER existed, at any time.
Period. It's not that hard.
Oh, and I used atheist as a noun.

There is no god or supernatural and I call myself atheist to de-stigmatize it.

I call myself atheist, only if asked ,mainly because it shuts people up - they usually say something like "oh thats sad!" and I usually shrug and leave. I don't proseletyse in any way to other people and never ask them their religion mostly because it isnt interesting to me but also because I find it tedious to talk about something that has no impact on my life. I don't go in for thinking about terms just whatever it takes to get people to realise I am godless & to stop harrassing me.

I think it takes more courage to say "atheist" than "agnostic". As the historical crow flies, it hasn't been that long since organized religion had the power to ex-communicate and ostracize people who didn't believe a certain way; the condemnation of the Inquisition and the burning of witches is not all that long ago in humanity's collective memory. They imprisoned, tortured, and burned alive even religious people! So what chance would an openly professed atheist stand under such circumstances? "Agnostic" is much safer . . . Why do many agnostics and atheists keep quiet in school and workplace? I don't think it's because their values and logic are in need of repair so much as it's a perceived issue of safety and not being isolated or ostracized. Perhaps such fear is no longer reasonable but for older people especially, history casts a long shadow.

I call myself both, because they both apply. Gnosis refers to knowledge, and theism to belief, so since I do not know there are no gods but, based on the current evidence (and the weakness of the arguments supporting theism), do not believe they exist that makes me an agnostic atheist.

I've met a few gnostic atheists, but frankly find their position even more absurd than gnostic theists. The people I admire most are the agnostic theists, since it takes some guts in America to openly admit there is no compelling evidence for god even tho you do believe in one.

I call myself an atheist. I don't believe in a superior being controlling the universe. I don't have superior knowledge; I am human. But I am intelligent enough to realize that religions are no more than inventions and are just man-made feel good methods of satisfying the superstitious population. Bottom line - atheist - meaning non-believer in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Agnostic and nostic are truth statement what you claim to know.Athiest and thiest is what you claim to believe.
Im not a thiest so by default im an atheist..
I can also be a agnostic athiest or a nostic Athiest.
I consider myself a anti-thiest. I won't use it while debating because the theist has the burrdon of proof that god exist... No need to shift that burrdon back to myself.

I prefer the term nontheist. Not "I don't believe in god" but "I believe there are no gods"

Because I want to ? I am totally not bothered what word I use so long as it keeps god botherers away from me - I never answer questions about my religion as I have never.,ever , had one and I always find the quibbles over words terribly boring.

Nostic/Agnostic is a position of Knowledge. No, I do not know there is or isn't something that exists that could be labeled god. Therefore I call myself Agnostic. Knowlege can be demonstrated.

Theist/Atheist is a position of belief. I have no reason to believe there is a god, therefore I do not and call myself an Atheist.

The Atheist position answers 1 question, I do not believe is god/gods. It does NOT assert a positive claim that there is NO god/gods. That is a claim that yields the burdun of proof on the one making the claim, which is just as unverifiable, untestable, and unfalsifiable as claiming a god does exist.

They are not 2 words identifying the same thing.

I call myself agnostic because even though my beliefs are strong, I am willing to admit that none of us likely KNOW what exists and what doesn't out there. Any religion could be correct. They could even all be correct in one way or another. There is no conclusive proof, in my opinion, that anyone is correct or not correct in entirety.

Why do you ask?

I found your post cogent & I find that I agree on many points. I label myself an agnostic-atheist. I don't believe, but can't prove the existence or non-existence of a diety. tho I myself might phrase it somewhat differently I find that I can go along pretty much with the Jerry DeWitt quote, "Skepticism is my Nature, Freethought is my Methodology, Agnosticism is my Conclusion, Atheism is my Opinion & Humanitarianism is my Motivation."

Labels are helpful but I label myself on how I function in life, rather than what I can imagine or know. I am a functional atheist. I live my life here and now. I don’t live my life in fear or guilt. No fear of hell. No guilt because I think some deity is looking out for me while millions starve and worse. I think it is more important what action I take. As far as stretching my mind to what I wish, hope, or could imagine, I see no point. If I’m wrong and some one or many gods exist, I don’t see them affecting my life so there’s no point in worrying about it.

I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in gods. Or any other "supernatural" thing for that matter. I think that on the macro-level, in this world what you see is what you get. Saying you're agnostic is simply saying you don't know for certain about something. While in the strictest sense I'm agnostic about the existence of god, the whole thing is so unlikely, that I just go all the way with atheist.

For me, an atheist is certain there is no god, and an agnostic says I do not believe in god because I see no evidence that god exists.
I think it is arrogant to assert that you can be certain there is no god. It is beyond the competency of human knowledge to be so certain about the unknown.

In my mind agnosticism is just another term for "playing it safe"...I do not believe in dieties; the whole concept Is, in my View, ridiculous. I am an atheist; I will die an atheist, and my atoms will disperse into the universe from whence they came. Agnosticism = " I'm a vegetarian, but just in case I always pack a bacon sarnie"

There is a group here who debate this sort of stuff its called atheist v agnostic just look for them under groups

I think you'll find that there is a 'group' set up for this dicussion as so many want to talk about it. I don't know if I am in it right now but I prefer to call myself Jac.

I feel that Atheist is a better position to avoid annoying debates with Theists. I am happy to talk to people about belief, but I don't appreciate the attitudes that most religious people have about religion.

I am just as certain that I exist, as I am that God does not exist.

As I have said before atheism is a shitty brand with equally shitty thought leadership. I don't want to be associated with it,

Aethiesm does not assume the nonexsistence of god, it merely suggests there is no demonstrable evidence for an omtiponet being. Please know that agnotism is aetheism with a caveat. Anti-theism is a different matter entirely.

People were convinced once that Fenrir the wolf swallowed the sun during an eclipse. Today, we call that mythology.. It's only a matter of time..

Because Atheist is the technically correct term.

You’ve probably come across the “non-stamp-collector” example. The word “atheist” is problematic because it describes one in terms of what one is not - not to mention that the word presumes that “theist” is the normative position. It’s still the better choice for me, because “agnostic” would imply an amount of uncertainty that would be dishonest in my case.