Atheist vs Agnostic

My question for agnostics is: Since you're presumably pretty negative about the existence of fairies, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and other fairy tales, why do you make an exception for God?As it turns out, there are some kinds of God you can be pretty certain don't exist. The only God you can't disprove is the do-nothing God that's specifically trying to hide from humanity.

The community that speaks that language. Dictionaries do not define words; they merely describe them. That's why different dictionaries all have different definitions for the same words. Unless we're able to come to some kind of agreement about what words mean, that's exactly what happens.

Here's one atheist that says "it's not possible to know that there are no gods, but it is possible to know that some gods aren't."

Are they? That's hardly undisputed. In fact it's fairly tenuous for you to make any assertions about qualities that God has when we haven't yet definied what God is.And moreover, if the natural world encompasses everything that can interact with physical objects, then how can anything be "super-natural"? At the very least, how can anything be "supernatural" and still be expected to have some kind of effect on the natural world? And if God or gods can't affect the natural world, in what way can they be said to exist? This sort of acts as a proof by contradiction - since the existence of God in the universe leads to an outcome that is incoherent (physical mechanisms that are not physical), God must not exist.Or maybe not. I'm not very good at proofs. But some Gods you can know. For instance, if we propose a God that is omniescent, omnipotent, and maximally benevolent, we know that God does not exist.I'm atheist about all gods except the minimally detectable ones; like you I must be agnostic about those. But who gives a damn about a god that can't do anything?