This is my third and final pitch on how the Catholic Church (RCC) views the non-believer community. The words of the Catechism (in italics) try to parse clarity of agnosticism. But, I think it still fits into what I’m trying to get at: the RCC is no expert on anything outside her own stained-glass windows. While these paragraphs twist being agnostic into a bad light, I end with my own view of agnosticism.
- 2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
So let it be written, so let it be wrong. Again, the CCC tries to decorate the tree of logic with ornaments from other trees. First the basics. How many forms? Agnostic is the view that ultimate reality (such as a deity) is probably unknowable. I am atheist and I agree with that. It is a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods. That’s it. No forms. Easy button pushed. If the author of paragraph 2127 can prove the existence of god, just do it, man!
- 2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.
Same wrong song, second verse. Anyone can do any of these things. A believer of any religion, an atheist, or an agnostic can search for god (among other things), be indifferent, question existence (or science), have a sluggish moral conscience, or exercise practical atheism. None of that is confined to agnostics. Furthermore, nonpracticing RCs can be living the life of practical atheism. Anyone can.
I don’t care what anyone says, an invisible deity (as well as many other things) is impossible to prove or disprove.
Throw whatever kind of arguments you want on the fire, we are all essentially agnostic. Nobody knows. Some swing hard to thinking god exists, some are playing a game with Pascal’s Wager, while others of us are confidently smug in the certainty that there are no gods. In between everyone else slides along a scale that excludes nobody. That makes us all agnostic. It also makes the term useless.

It tells us nothing more than how a person chooses to identify, which, when you think about it, is what this entire discussion has been about.
If you say you believe in a god or gods, then you are a believer. If you cannot say that you believe god exists, then you are an atheist. It may be a weak, flippy-floppy, and unsure atheism. But a non-believer is what you are.
Yes, there may be a god, a devil, a tooth fairy, and one each leprechaun under my bed. But I am uncertain and that should be good enough.
I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means. ~ Clarence Darrow

2125 — Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.”