So I met a person who is an atheist, but not an agnostic, and very strongly against being titled as an agnostic. Basically he's a gnostic atheist, but it took me a while to clear up what both of us were saying.
In the end I came to an interesting conclusion.
User: To be honest I made a bad example. However simply because you can't disprove something isn't compelling evidence to believe it.
Me: But agnostics don't believe god exists.
User: Right but the don't not believe it either. Which in this case I don't believe any of it. I don't believe there is any god at all.
Me: It is possible for an agnostic to also believe that deities will never be proven to exist.
But then he's like, a gnostic agnostic atheist, because he's making the claim that he knows that god can never be proven or disproven to exist. Which, if god were to show itself, would disprove them.
So it seems my best bet is to be an agnostic agnostic atheist, who says existence of deities currently is not proven nor disproven, and we do not currently have a way to prove or disprove it, but I don't know if that could change in the future or not.
