It is of course understandable that people should still believe that there is a distinction and, even as the author writes, people would quite readily and quite confidently inform you of the difference between an atheist and an agnostic. It tends to be defined thus:

The difficulty that people encounter, quite understandably when discussing metaphysical propositions, is a conceptual one; a very established perspective and one that has been conditioned through millennia of social context. Let us consider an example.

If I were to propose to you that there was such a thing as a ‘Glorb’ on the far side of Pluto that was, unbeknownst to everyone except myself, directly responsible for maintaining our Universe’s existence: how would you categorise your stance?

The rational agnostic’s stance would have to be: Perhaps there is; perhaps there is not.

Or: I don’t believe there is, but perhaps that’s true. I would need more evidence.

Or perhaps: There is no way of knowing whether you are correct or incorrect.

The rational atheist’s stance would have to be: I don’t believe that to be the case unless you can show me proof.

Or perhaps: I disbelieve that. Prove your stance.

In this instance, do not both stances seem reasonable? If anything, the atheist’s stance might be considered more rational by a wider group of people. Why would that be the case? Perhaps because my statement seems so preposterous; perhaps because I have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever for making such a claim.

One important point to take away at this point: one mutual ground both share (as also with their view of deities) is that neither the agnostic nor the atheist believes in Glorb.

The apologist retorts: Yes, but the atheist is more active; he disbelieves, which is a much bolder position, whereas the agnostic just does not believe. And here, semantics enter the arena. What is the agnostic’s reason for not believing? Retort: He or she has not seen enough evidence to feel that they are in a position to commit to one stance or the other. Why does the atheist not believe? It is not for the same reason as a theist, who has a faith and deeply held conviction that something exists. It is in fact, for the same reason as the agnostic. There is no reason to believe. No evidence has been presented and so the statement comes across as completely unfounded; perhaps even insane.

Returning to the ‘Glorb’, the reason the atheist’s stance, this author maintains, appears more reasonable is due to the fact that the burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. Think of instances in which we ‘disbelieve’ in every day life:

It is perfectly rational to question outrageous and logic-defying claims; we do so on a daily basis with events that are empirically testable. The problem with metaphysical claims, of course, is that they are not testable.

The example given above of Jack and Jill aptly demonstrates the atheist’s viewpoint. The problem that the atheist encounters— and the one that Jill did not— is that, regarding metaphysical statements, which have no means of testing, the ‘agnostic’ stance somehow appears more reasonable, which is illogical.