Ask an Atheist

The commoness of one path of it is objective how? And the layman agnostic isn't atheist. at it's minimum there is distinction in not being convinced there is or is not a god and being convinced there isn't. I think my response to your points still stands.

Perhaps we're arguing two different versions of the same word. In my book, if you don't currently have a belief in any type of god, then you're an atheist. Whether or not you entertain possibilities of the existence of the supernatural and are willing to change your mind based on evidence does not change that base distinction. If you are not convinced, then you don't really believe.

And I'll acknowledge being wrong about the origin of the word "agnosticism". Quick google searches show its origins to be T.H. Huxley, but having far greater reaches into the past philosophies. I think I was remembering the way Carl Sagan referred to himself as agnostic, in a time when professing non-belief would make one very much more unpopular to the general public. I have a feeling that part of this was because he wanted to avoid controversy, but I don't believe he ever explicitly stated it like that. However, he himself never seemed to be much convinced with any of the explanations in his time, preferring to see evidence rather than have faith. Depending on the definition, I believe this makes him more of an atheist than agnostic, unless you're defining atheism as having full and complete knowledge of the non-existence of god.

Perhaps "atheism" itself carries too much baggage. I'll just describe myself as "waiting for proof".