You must be new here, it is IMO 80% atheists, 15% agnostics, (many moving closer to atheism by the minute), 3% republicans and 2% trolls (very religious people attempting to make /find ways to insinuate religion into our thinking..... they are fun to find & humiliate!)

Because I don't want to type a "-" when I type in a website.

Seriously, don't sweat the small stuff. On this site, as in life, no matter the label, you have a whole spectrum of individuals who have the same label. Welcome, graba cold one, and relax. We're all just chickens here.

As @aralt stated below, agnosticism is "why you believe/how sure are you of that belief". Atheism is "what you believe".

Agnostic Atheist: a non-believer because there's no proof yet of existence of a god
Gnostic Atheist: a non-believer because I know there's no proof
Agnostic Theist: a believer because there's no proof yet of non-existence of a god
Gnostic Theist: a believer because I know there's proof of a god. (I hear his voice every morning.)

Theism/atheism is an answer to "Do you believe?" And Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an answer to "How certain are you of that belief?"

You must be new here, it is IMO 80% atheists, 15% agnostics, (many moving closer to atheism by the minute), 3% republicans and 2% trolls (very religious people attempting to make /find ways to insinuate religion into our thinking..... they are fun to find & humiliate!)

This has been dealt with before, and the name doesn't mean it is primarily an agnostic site. Admin has indicated previously it came down to the availability of the domain name. One or two agnostics have tried to suggest that the site name, agnostic, reflects this site's leanings. It doesn't. I agree with you that nonbeliever.com would have been better, but that's a moot point. I'm an atheist too, without qualification. I'm not an agnostic. So no need to feel excluded. They had to call it something.

I think most atheists are agnostic in so far as that they (we) admit that while we don't believe in God and/or don't see any evidence supporting the claim, there is no real evidence (besides a general lack of evidence) proving that there is no god.

I view god (both big and little 'g' as a form of cryptid. Most (chupacabra, fairies, skunkman) most likely don't exist. Some (like the unicorn or Loch Ness monster) sorta exist or are based on real things, even if it is not accurate. And some few have been proven to actually exist (the Narwhal was concidered a fictitious creature until the late 19th and early 20th centuries).

You can't definitively say there is no god without evidence to support that claim, which doesn't really seem to exist or be even practical. The problem is that the agnostic and atheist labels get tossed around as if they are describing the same aspect of a person when, particularly in modern usage, they don't.

Agnostic/gnostic is a knowledge claim, atheism/theism is a belief claim.

You're probably over thinking it.

Suck it up buttercup. We're all just here to seek refuge from the onslaught of religious propaganda that exists everywhere else. I'm an atheist.

Also, "nonbelievers" is one word, not hyphenated.

I disagree. I think that properly speaking, everyone is agnostic with regard to the issue of deities. We simply cannot know for sure. As I put on my profile, I am philosophically agnostic but culturally atheist. This means that I acknowledge it is impossible to know for sure, but also, that I regard it as a waste of time to chase the question - no different than the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

There are more atheist than agnostic on this sight, so be happy

I think that ther are actually more of us atheists on this site than agnostics.

You can join the group Simply Athiest ?

Years ago, I was watching a nature channel and I was fascinated by a symbiotic relationship that I saw between a tree (species I can't remember) and an ant colony (species I can't remember). This particular tree provided a nectar that was poisonous to all species of life EXCEPT this one particular ant colony. When the tree came under threat it would vibrate - sending a message to this ant colony that it was being invaded. In return, the ant colony would gather it's army, climb the tree and then expel the invader. For a reward, the tree would provide a nectar that only they could eat.

As an atheist or even if I was a deist - I could come up with every scientific reason under the book for this symbiotic relationship. But for some, it is a symbol of perfection and for them it leaves a little doubt in their mind as to whether or not there might have been a creator because to them it's too perfect.

That's the slim difference between being an agnostic and an non-theist and that slim difference opens up a ton of opportunities to have rational conversations unless we use this forum to ask why some people prefer Pizza over Tacos or Dogs over Cats.

I like the name, agnostic.

I guess agnostic sounds better

Marketing, SEO and domain availability

It certainly doesn't. Not all of us have reached the higher state of pure atheism. I would consider myself one of those. But I don't see how calling it agnostic.com excludes atheists. I think most of the members here are probably atheists. Further, agnostic, means that you question the existence of God. I suppose you could argue, like my ex, that you are absolutely certain that there is no God. But then most would say "you question the existence of God" thus agnostic would include your position. You question God's existence and you are sure that you know the answer to that question.

They mentioned in the site description all secular individuals are welcome here.

that didnt scare many. There are plenty of atheists here

I like this site and consider it, generally, as a gathering place for critical thinkers (although that hasn't always been my experience here). I don't really care what it's called.
If we start to worry about excluding folks, it won't matter what the site is called, it will exclude someone.

I call myself an atheist, among other things. I used to call myself an agnostic in my younger years.

Hand-waving-ly:
I take the term Atheist to mean 100% does not believe in a "God".
I take the term Agnostic to mean ambivalent, or unsure; not really willing to make the call about the existence of "God" one way or the other.

Also - I don't really mind how other folks define these terms - to each his own.
Quibble about the nuances if you like - it won't change my mind, or my life.
I do not subscribe to any religion or believe in any "magical being in the sky".
I also don't believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or that there is a Tea Pot in orbit around Saturn.

I liken religion to being in a fandom, but taking it one step (or many steps) too far.
When you start to believe the fairytale and the characters as real (and everlasting, all knowing, all powerful, the answer to all, or whatever...)

I thought 'agnostics' was at the top of a list, which includes atheists?

I think of myself as an atheist, but I am still open to look at any newly discovered facts which may cause me to re-evaluate, which is kind of agnostic... in a sense.

I think they chose agnistic, beca8se it more denotes openmindedness.