This is just my opinion, but I always figured the difference this way. If handed proof, or at least a reasonable amount of evidence, an agnostic is willing to change his mind. The atheist is not.

The trouble I have with agnostic is which of the literally thousands of religions do you not disbelieve in? Are you a christian agnostic, a hindu agnostic, a muslim agnostic ????

Love you - thank you!

To me, these distinctions matter, if at all, philosophically only. For all practical purposes, I am an atheist and I think there is enough rational argument to come to the conclusions that there is no god or creator. This hair-splitting only comes up with religion for some reason. No-one ever discusses whether they are aunicorny or just agnostic about the question if there is pink unicorn revolving around the black hole in the center of our galaxy. We cannot really rule that out so strictly speaking we would have to be agnostic about it. But hell no, I am totally aunicorny in the same way as I am totally atheist. Because the alternatives are just too silly: they explain nothing, they predict nothing, they do not fit into any scientific theory, and they beg to get cut off by Occam's razor.
So, let us cut them off and not waste any more time on them.

Yes there is a creator, modern man calls her nature, her and the big bang is what led to our creation.

I regard [a]gnosticism as a knowledge position and [a]theism as a belief position. My knowledge position is agnostic -- I don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods. And my belief position is atheistic -- I don't see a valid reason to believe in any god.

Classic Huxlian agnosticism IS as you describe it ... the notion that not only do I not personally stake a knowledge claim one way or the other -- but that it's not even doable. I hold to this, because invisible beings allegedly outside the natural order are inherently non-falsifiable.

However, many modern agnostics are "soft" agnostics who just profess to be personally "not sure", implying that some new information could change that in the future. What information that might be, they never seem to say. i think this latter, watered-down agnosticism is responsible for the notion that agnosticism is some sort of way-station between belief and unbelief. Theists find this idea pleasing because uncertainty is far less threatening and taboo than unbelief, and besides, such an agnostic might still be persuadable. They tend to consider atheism too irredeemable to hold out the hope of [re]conversion.

Another major reason for "agnostic atheism" is that it circumvents the argument that atheism is inherently "arrogant". If atheism claims to KNOW there is no god, that argument finds some purchase, because you'd have to be god yourself -- be everywhere and everywhen -- to LITERALLY stake such a knowledge claim. And fundamentalists are nothing if not literal. I am willing to not KNOW there is no god, even if on a technicality, to emphasize that atheism is really a different beast: not affording belief to the unsubstantiated and/or highly unlikely.

To me, "there is no god" is a semantic shortcut that would be reasonable in any other discussion but this one. I live my life exactly as if I were making such a knowledge claim. The difference between being 100% sure and 99.9999% sure isn't a practical difference. But I'll be damned (ha!) if I'm going to give a believer an excuse to dismiss a considered, substantial certainty with mere arrogance.

I contend that belief is an active thing. For any premise, you either believe it or you do not; saying, "I don't know" implies that I do not actively believe. To borrow an idea from Matt Dillahunty (or at least that's where I heard it), knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you also believe. There can also be things that you believe but do not know, and things that you neither know nor believe.

When you answer a yes/no question with, "I believe so," you aren't expressing certainty; you're saying that you are unsure but believe the answer to be "yes." I see atheism and theism the same way. I don't know that no gods exist, but I don't believe they do, and therefore I call myself an atheist.

I dig your rant.

Also, thanks for doing all that work.

I call myself an Atheist. I believe (there is that word!) there are NO GODS. I have come to this conclusion after some study and some experiences in my life. I cannot PROVE that I am correct.

I am philosophically more of an Agnostic, in that there could be evidence that would convince me, and I have just not seen it. I also feel like this will never happen because lack of evidence does not prove something is not real.

I do not identify myself as an agnostic because religious people hear "Agnostic" and they think "So you just haven't heard my arguments." I have no desire to hear a bunch more damn arguments about GOD.

So for me, the answer is clearly ATHEIST and bugger off you religious nuts!

No offense to any kind of nuts, but that's how I feel.

I believe that gods are a human construct, all life is a result of evolution, and humans have a limited understanding of the cosmos. I tell my friends and family that I am agnostic, only because it is more socially acceptable than being atheist, and I know that is cowardly. I also don't like hurting the feelings of my religious loved ones, so I will often say that I am open to the "possibility" of there being a God... even though I most certainly am not.

I watched a lot of debates on Youtube around definitions etc, There seems to be this need to try and trip someone up regarding a meaning or definition so that they can do the 'A-ha!' and sweep away everything you believe in. What is promoted as intelligent discourse turns out to be intellectual mumbo-jumbo that leaves everybody tied up in knots! For me it's quite simple. I see no evidence to believe in the existence of a god or gods and so don't and you are welcome to define any label you like for me, I couldn't care less

first of all, i will admit that i did not manage to read your entire rant-blurb.
just today i had to re-check on my profile whether i still stand behind my claims to be agnostic as well as an atheist...
& hurrah! i am. i do not see nor have i ever seen evidence of a superhuman power apart from nature, & she is sheer energy, the zest of life.
i also am an atheist, not believing in any god - which is easy for me, because i am a relentless non-believer.
one claim i had to take back after some consideration, & that is to be a humanist. not everything that tickles my senses is in my control, in fact, humans have almost no control over the vital things in life. it breathes.

I do not think what you wrote was a rant, I think it was a very well thought out opinion!

I do not agree 100% with what you said, but I like that you said it, and it makes me happy that people like you - who can form well-rounded opinions - exist on this planet!

I did read to the end, and do not consider what you wrote a "blurb"... I think it is mostly awesome!

Good article, but it's simple. Agnostic means "I don't know." Atheist means no belief in gods. An agnostic could be searching for a god to believe in, but could just mature and be "without a deity."

It's worth having a look at Alex O'connor (CosmicSkeptic) on Youtube for arguments along these lines.

He prefers the label "Atheist" because it is a familiar term which people can identify with as a "political" position.

Personally, I identify as agnostic because I can not rule out the possibility of some kind of sentience in the universe distinct from that of an individual animal. I don't believe in one; I just can't rule it out.

This might also be of interest:

I agree with your own named beliefs- I.e. about rejecting the Hebrew god idea, yet not being able to disprove other types of gods, etc., and stand by my self-definition as "agnostic."

The best we can hope for is to understand or at least tolerate other people's philosophies. And it's not such a bad thing to hope for.

For me, agnostic is not strong enough, and really just semantics.

For the nonce, I go with Atheist. Strictly speaking I would not claim certainty but operate as if I do.
I think I do know, as far as one may tell, That there are no superlative, rational agencies extant.
I guess by definition a gnostic atheist.

It's funny, in my brief time on this site, my awareness has also been broadened, but I've come to the opposite conclusion as you, @silvereyes. I have considered myself to be an atheist, but this site has shown me that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is/are (a) god(s), but until solid evidence is presented, l choose to believe god(s) do(es) not exist.

It is precisely because the two words are so different in meaning that I find them to not be mutually exclusive. And l will admit l was quite surprised to learn this about myself.

And while I agree that saying fuck the labels and get to know the person is a great attitude, labels are unavoidable. And given that, l feel that we should do our best to use them as valid descriptors of ourselves, just not as end all, be all definitions.

Thanks for such a thoughtful post.

Funny, I just did a video about this sort of topic.

what i have been thinking all along

I find the Atheism= belief and Agnostic= knowledge definitions to be very useful to me. I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know but I don't believe there is any god. (And I do broaden mine to all gods)

I usually just say "Atheist". But when someone wants to challenge me the most common objection is "how can you know" That's when I explain that knowing is not what I'm claiming.

All that being said, I don't care what definitions are being used. I just define my terms when speaking to others so we're all on the same page.

Agreed. The absurdity is in both terms because there's rarely a label for "not something". Are you a gymnast? No I'm an agymnast. Do you know about quantum physics? No I'm an agnostic physicist. The utility is only in the rarity. Titles like secularist or humanists make a little more sense, but I get a blank stare if I say those. So agnostic atheist it is I guess. Likewise, neither term describes anything else about me.