Uh, if you are a number two, you don’t have to SAY you’re a chickenshit or anything…
That depends on what kind of “god” is under consideration.
I believe that science (and mere logic!) mandate the non-existence of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God, believed to be omniscient and omnipotent. (For example, how does the Mind of God store knowledge? Is he composed of parts, or is he a seamless whole? If he created all things…where did he come from? etc. etc.)
To me, that particular God is as definitionally non-existant as a four-sided triangle or a perpetual-motion machine. This is why I call myself a “strong” atheist. It isn’t a matter of faith; it’s a matter of how the axioms stack up under my own processes of reasoning.
Believers have different viewpoints, and I respect them. In many cases, they’re working from different axioms. In many cases, the faithful have direct personal revelation of truth, via prayer, miracle, etc. that flatly contradict my concepts of evidence and truth. That alone puts us at an impasse.
And in the middle, occupying a gentle ground, are those who say, “I haven’t seen any evidence yet, but I won’t rule it out.” Those are the “weak atheists” or “definition two agnostics.” I have more respect for them than for almost any other viewpoint (including my own!) because they invoke the fewest axioms and depend on the least evidence.
(You might call them “Null Hypothesis” atheists.)
I wish there were a lot more of 'em!
Trinopus
Again: I vote we just have atheist mean “lack of belief in god/gods” and be done with it. Then everyone else within that term can have all their little theories and arguments about god not existing or just not believing it, and no one will be confused and think their views apply to all atheists.
I mean, do all theists believe in a supernatural Jesus? No: all we need to know about theists is that they believe in a god. All we need to know about atheists is that they don’t believe.
Alternatively, if that’s too hard for people, I’d prefer to dump atheist altogether and just go with non-theist.
But, Apos, what’s the fun of discussing fine striations in the grand spectrum of belief without making up labels to fit every possible stripe? (Only half joking!)
Trinopus (Kinsey No. 2, Hubert-Humphrey Liberal, logical positivist, and foot partialist)
Neither of those definitions is even remotely close to what agnosticism is.Type “Thomas Huxley” & " Agnosticism" into your search engine.
The problem with most discussions of atheism is that “god” is loosely defined. Human religions have gods ranging from concrete fundamentalist varieties to varieties verging on deism. Many theologies change the goal posts as science discovers more refutations to the Bible.
If the definition of strong atheism involves belief (I believe that there are no gods) it seems perfectly rational, since this is a reasonable thing to believe given that there is no evidence of the existence of any. If strong atheism involves the assertion that there are no gods, then we have all the problems described in this thread already. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could assert that there is no deist god hiding out on the other side of the Big Bang. Of course all atheists lack belief in gods. We’re strong atheists by the second definition for some gods but not others - but even theists are this!
As inconvenient as it may be, people interpret things differently. They even form their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs on occasion. 
If you think there are no people who call themselves agnostics because they are afraid to say they are atheists just in case there really is a god and they don’t want to piss that god off, then you’re in denial. Makes one wonder about this: There was a moral edge to Huxley’s agnosticism. “That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.” (http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm)
Although I’m not particularly interested in the differences in strong or weak atheists or the other things discussed in the thread, I’m not denying they have some validity and that they are important to some people. I’m just saying there are other people out there who are looking at this issue a little differently. Maybe I shouldn’t have jumped in on your thread. For that, I apologize.
Apos:
But by your own logic, this is not what agnostic means.
An agnostic would be someone who lacks the belief that it is possible to know whether or not God exists.
Those who actively believe it is impossible are only a subset of agnostics.
I find that agnostic is the best description, because I do not know if there is a God, and I do not believe it is possible for me to know, however I believe there is a chance God could exist, and I believe there is a chance that it is possible to know that he exists.
Your Theist/Athiest definitions are less useful to me, because belief is not so cut and dry as those definitions suggest.
For instance, at times in my life I see what I believe is evidence that God exists. Accordingly, I act as though he exists. I assume that at times like that I am a theist by your definition, even if I am not sure that God exists. At other times, I feel that the evidence is weak, and while I still hope that God exists and act as though he exists, I also prepare myself for death and nonexistance and act in other ways as though there was no God. At times like this I think it is silly to call me either a theist or an athiest. At still other times, I believe that it is unlikely that God exists, making me an athiest.
The only constant is that I lack the belief that I can know for sure.