What is the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, especially if the atheist still leaves room for the chance that they could be wrong? Doesn't that make them agnostic, if they can't prove there's no god? Well, this is a bit foolish, if you don't mind me saying so. By this logic, everyone, religious believers included, should be agnostic.

But, we don't think about other beliefs in this way. No one says they're agnostic as to whether or not they'll wake up tomorrow as a different species. We believe we'll wake up as ourselves, and this is ok. This is reasonable. Baggini says, "In the absence of any good reasons to believe outlandish claims, we rightly disbelieve them, we don't just suspend judgement."

He goes further to explain that it is dogmatic to leave no possibility that one is wrong, and that one can reject the dogmatism of both believers and non-believers without having to be an agnostic. He says, "For instance, an atheist who says that they believe there are no good reasons for being anything other than an atheist and that they themselves cannot imagine a situation arising in which they would give up their beliefs is still not being dogmatic, just as long as they acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong."

Harbour says that "Agnosticism is the studied art of fence-sitting in the face of fields neither of which offers greener grass. Alternatively, it is an absence of belief in virtue of an absence of arguments: no belief concerning God's existence because there are no compelling arguments for either atheism or theism." He then rejects this as logical because he has spent his whole book making a positive argument for atheism as "the plausible and probably correct belief that God does not exist." He is a bit harsh toward agnostics, but he has a point, that you can believe one or the other and still leave room for new evidence.

(I hope to add more on this topic later)