No. I'm saying it's orthogonal, but that most self described agnostics are atheists. You can be agnostic and Christian, which, to a point, is even endorsed by the Catholic Church, but agnostic Christians usually just self label as Christian.

What about those who explicitly believe we can’t know if there’s a god (s)?

That’s strong agnosticism.

Because I just discovered it on wikipedia I think is worth adding ‘Ignostic’ - the belief that frankly it’s pointless even discussing any of this unless you can first define a deity. Seems bloody sensible to me.

There are also some subtle variations in agnosticism.

There's the soft variety that says "there is no proof that convinces me either way but I won't rule out that someone could come up with one".

There's the hard variety that says "I don't think it's possible to prove either way".

There's even a variety that says "it doesn't matter whether (a) god exists or not, hence there's no need for a proof".

But yeah, the core of agnosticism is that you don't believe the existence of (a) god has been conclusively proven or disproven and are unwilling to commit either way without that proof.

Ah, interesting. Never heard the term "Anti-theist," but that does fit the bill a bit better.

My understanding was that atheism is the belief that there is no god(s), whereas to be agnostic is the absence of belief one way or another, i.e unable to prove or disprove existence of god(s). With this interpretation it's more scientifically rational (for whatever that's worth) to be agnostic than atheist.

The importance of such a distinction doesn't merit much fuss beyond freshman philosophy though since you get some atheists who are absolutely evil cunts and plenty of genuinely good people of almost all religions.

Anti-theists are "there is definitely no god", .

It's more like active opposition to a theistic religions. For example many people think that "there's no gods, and theistic religions are harmful to our society"

and they have just as much evidence as believers

This is very stupid way to put it. If you make a claim, you should provide the proof to support that claim. The claim is that there is a god or several, yet no proof to support that claim, which means that claim is plain made up shit and the logical conclusion "there's no gods"

See also Russell's teapot

Hate is hater's problem, not mine

Or simply assume you didn't suffer enough yet. Because everyone who strongly suffers will start praying, right?

Just because i don't believe in gods, doesn't mean i believe in nothing. That's a common misconception that the religious like to promote.

Well that faith is primarily based on the belief that there ought to be a god, in order to explain the world in all its beauty, complexity, anthropocentricity or something like that. It's just that their particular variety of religion seems to them the most plausible description of what said deity might be like, which isn't incompatible with other, less plausible and outdated, ideas of God existing. Even if the plausibility of one's religious views can be brought into question, it doesn't really address the presumed need for a deity to exist in order to explain the world for what it is.