"Weak-agnostic-weak-atheist" is still pretty long, especially in everyday conversation.

Your belief seems pretty much the same as mine, so you're a "weak atheist".

I think it's a given that I'm a "weak agnostic", considering I am in no position to claim "we will never know whether or not there is a god".

However, I don't make the claim that "there is no god". I merely have not been given sufficient evidence to prove a god/s' existence. Either I'm a REALLY weak atheist, or I'm not an atheist at all (without being a theist, if that's at all possible... is it?).

Furthermore, how do I best convey my religious stance in everyday conversation? "I'm a weak-agnostic-and-a-really-weak-atheist-or-possibly-not-an-atheist-at-all-without-being-a-theist-if-that's-at-all-possible" is a bit cumbersome.

You've pretty much got atheism down-pat, yeah.

As for agnosticism: I'm mostly not one, but on the issue of an omnipotent deity I'm part-way between strong and weak.

Finally, omnipotence doesn't mean that a deity must want to be known, but it does mean that if they do want to be known they can be, essentially.

And the "strength" of the atheism relates to how sure the person is that there is no god? PLEASE tell me I have it this time

Doesn't this make you a weaker agnostic?

Perhaps this omnipotent deity isn't bound by the laws of logic

And why does omnipotence translate into a desire to make him/herself known?

Atheism is the lack of belief in any deity, and you've got Agnosticism pretty much down pat.

And yeah, there are Atheists that aren't Agnostics, and vice-versa.

As for simply powerful deities: I could be convinced of their existence relatively easily. If the Norse pantheon started walking around I'd be startled and incredulous, but it'd be easy enough for them to prove that they were who they claimed.

Finally: Alright, it's a bit tricky. I cannot currently think of any action that would prove to me that, say, you were omnipotent. If you turned water into wine and fed 5 000 with two loaves of bread and some fish, I'd be impressed, but that wouldn't be evidence of omnipotence, simply more power than humans currently have.

However, if you were truly omnipotent then you could do anything, which means that you'd be able to convince me of your omnipotence, even though I cannot currently think of any possible way for you to do so.

Ahhh... that makes it all clear. Thanks, John .

S'let me see if I've got this: Atheism relates to the degree to which one believes there is no god/s, while Agnosticism relates to whether or not we will ever know if said god/s exist/s.

What you've typed on my wall would place me in the "weak atheist, weak agnostic" quadrant. Possibly. I'm on the edge regarding my beliefs on whether or not we'll ever see evidence of a deity.

Tell me this though: is it at all possible for anyone to be one but not the other?

Agnosticism is about knowing about any deity, right?

What if this deity was NOT omnipotent, merely really powerful. Can you conceive proof sufficient to make you believe in such a deity? If you could, wouldn't that make you a weak agnostic?

My brain hurts trying to wrap myself around this concept. Mind laying it out for me ?

Atheism and Agnosticism are all sorts of fun to define. At a minimum you've got 2 varieties of each, more depending on who you talk to.

The main difference is this: Atheism says: "I do not believe in God(s)", Agnosticism says "I do not know if God(s) exist."

Each can be split into "Weak" and "Strong" versions.

"Weak" atheism (which is what most atheists, myself included*, are) says "I do not believe in God(s, but God(s) *may* exist."

"Strong" atheism says "God(s) cannot exist" or "God(s) do not exist"

"Weak" agnosticism says "I do not know if God(s) exist, but may one day find out."

"Strong" agnosticism says "It is impossible to ever know if God(s) exist."

Then you get implicit v. explicit. Essentially, atheism can be further split by if one's atheism is implicit (You don't believe in God(s) because you've never even heard of the concept) or explicit (You don't believe in God(s) despite having heard of the concept.)

Then you get all sorts of other fun divisions.

*I'm somewhere between weak and strong atheism. I do not believe in any deities, and I consider it incredibly unlikely that any exist. However, since it is not completely impossible for them to do so, I could be convinced of their reality if sufficient proof was provided.

Of course, I'm also a bit of a strong agnostic (we split these divisions so fine, and then blend them back together again...) in that I cannot conceive of any proof sufficient to make me believe in an omnipotent deity. However, I also hold that an omnipotent deity would, by virtue of being omnipotent, be able to convince me of their existence if they wished to do so.

In practice, then, I treat deities much like I treat Martians. It's possible they exist, but I'm not going to act as if they do, and if you start making laws based on what Martians want, I'm going to get angry.

wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.