atheist replies a connection with religion, albeit a negative one. It puts believing in god as norm and therefore all others are non-believers.
Atheist implies someone doesn't believe that deities exists or that belief in deities is rational. Nothing more nothing less.
This also implies and in a way validates believing by putting it first and thus legitimising it further.
I don't follow? Saying that the concept of a deity is illogical and belief in a deity is irrational validates and legitimizes deities and beliefs in them? Really??
Agnostic is a pure standpoint of not being attached to any ruling view of God or supernatural. It does not even recognize it. There could be a god, there could be not. Until so far there is zero evidence so I am not swaying one way or the other-->agnostic
If it's true that there is zero evidence, it would only be because there are
no consequences at all to the existence of this deity. Claiming that there is something thing that is neither provable nor disprovable implies that neither the claim nor the claims' negation has
any detectable consequences. Or to put it simply the "claim" doesn't actually claim anything.
