I’m a classical agnostic like you.

Miss you.

I didn't read all the comments and don't assume to add anything ground breaking but...

Our brains are predisposed to "faith". We believe what is taught to us in our forming. We have to have some faith in our society and community to survive. We have faith that when we wake up tomorrow, words will mean the same thing as they did yesterday.

The unknowable is just that, not known, therefore an "athiest" being certain there is no God is also fallacy and one must have faith in their conviction to stand strongly on that label. So too our words and definitions are part of our social contract. Reject language and reject your own humanity.

Isn't then enlightenment, broadly defined, a way of embracing agnosticism, saying fuck labels, but losing a little bit of your ownership over human discourse. A hermit might assume he is outside of faith but even she must have faith in himself. Aren't we all theists until we are not, owing the fact we believe or disbelieve there is free will, or that answers are on the way, instead of more questions.

If nothing else, we have faith in that we are a thing called human, either separate or one with the rest of the universe. We perhaps assume we have no choice in our biology, we take solace in that we will be here again tomorrow, but tell that to the Neanderthal. In other words we cannot be certain of anything except we do not know what we do not know.

I guess I'm agnostic, I'm not sure...but I have faith in our endless search for definitions, how very human of me.

we miss you.

This is too short, please make it longer

Glad you're back. We/I missed you.

Penn Jillette, of all people, has a really logical way of explaining Atheist vs Agnostic.
Whether you question if a god exists or is knowable, if you lack a belief in a god, then you are an atheist. You don't have to actively believe is definitely no god. Only that you lack a belief in any particular one.

An agnostic is an atheist who has a more questioning philosophy. After all an agnostic also lacks a belief on any particular god, or you wouldn't be agnostic. It's not that the two aren't comparable or similar, but that one is a subsection of the other.

At least that is how it logically makes sense to me. I used to quibble of the semantics of the words until someone asked me a simple question:
Do you have an active belief in any kind of god?
No, than you're not a theist.

"I don't know" is a reasonable answer, but if you don't know if a god exists, then are you claiming he does? Saying a god is possible is not the same as saying I believe in a god.

Of course in the end it's more of a semantics based argument. To me, it's the difference between a Catholic and a Roman Catholic.

The terminology seems like a contradiction because, in your mind, you have assigned excess meaning to a very simple word. I am an agnostic atheist. They are not mutually exclusive things at all. And both terms are used because they denote a very important distinction. I choose to label myself because it's accurate and it conveys information. That's what labels are for.... I'm not down with useless arguments. But I'm also not down with the whole, "Hey, we are all on the same side for the most part so why don't we just get along and forget about logic and meaning" mentality. That is more against "free thinking" than objective debate.

I really like the part of this site that asks how certain you are that there is no god. It gives perspective to the notion that there are many levels of non belief. I, myself, am more apathetic than agnostic or atheists.

As my Dad used to say...agnostics aren't sure if there's a god. Atheists are!

As my Dad used to say...agnostics aren't sure if there's a god. Atheists are!

Great post! NOT a rant--too thought provoking. Don't put your soap box where you can't find it again.

Seems to me theres confusion here about the word "believe." Which is understandable. Google the definition of that word and you get two rather contradictory definitions. We can't define words like agnostic and atheist without first knowing what we mean by the word believe and the problem from where Im sitting is that people use that word differently. I tend to view belief as more of a supposition rather than knowledge, and therefore I don't see atheism as distinct from agnosticism.

Agnostics say there is no way to know if there is a god or not. Actually the anthropological evidence shows how the god concept was created through intentional agency and so forth. That said,I am not too concerned about which title you take. The truth is our beliefs our based on evidence, and we are willing to change our beliefs if new evidence shows that we were wrong. This is a huge contrast to faith which holds onto a belief in spite of the evidence.

I appreciated reading what I did of your post. It is too long to hold my interest to read the entire post, but from what I gathered, you emphasized the importance of learning to think critically, and I totally agree with that. When I'm thinking critically, I question all of the identities that I attach myself to and remain open to reforming any belief I hold to be true.

This has nothing to do with your post, but I just wanted to say I hadn't seen you in a hot minute, Silver! Welcome back! I have MISSED your posts!

I have a problem with the word Agnostic, which is that technically, neither believers nor non-believers can absolutely know, or prove anything. Is not EVERYONE technically Agnostic. I therefore feel the word is largely USELESS except in a few circumstances which I'll get to. What really matters is belief. What does it really matter if you entertain the notion of some sort of god which is absent of any doctrine (religion) or is not a personal god who intervenes in our affairs. It seems to me non-sensical to label yourself based upon anything other than your beliefs, unless you simply wish to avoid the question. Perhaps you don't want the baggage which comes with a label, or don't wish to be pigeon-holed. These are understandable and valid reasons any of us may wish to choose at times a non-commital word such as Agnostic. But let's be honest with ourselves about what is being done. I feel the term Agnostic most makes sense for those truly torn between belief and non-belief. I would presume that for many, though not necessarily all, that would be a transitional and temporary state. There are very few things which can be proven absolutely. The bottom line comes down to what, based on the preponderance of evidence, you find believable or credible. Thoughts?

We've been down this road before, and often, so I'm not going to say much. But do notice how often people say God, singular, especially the agnostic position that there is no way to know if there's a god or not. Always or very often the singular. Agnostics are indeed welcome to hold the agnostic position. I merely humbly ask that they say that they are equally agnostic about all gods, ancient and modern, and always use the plural, and really mean that they are as agnostic about the God Apollo, for example, as they are about the Christian God. Like Bertrand Russell, I don't think they are, in practise. I certainly could never say that and truly mean it. Now, as an atheist, I'm happy to shout from the rooftops that I am equally atheist about all gods, every one of them. Indeed, I say so regularly.

This is probably one of the best and certainly the most well researched responses to this arguement I have heard to date and I have heard more than a few. I think for some of us, myself included in different parts of my life, we feel the need to define ourselves by disagreement. While I understand it can be easier to laud oneself by cogently or not so intelligently being disagreeable it takes time to see the value in more constructive input in any kind of conversation, particularly so among real and potential allies. Thing is, I can vehemently disagree with you and still see the value or mindset your points come from, and you will value my input more as a result of seeing or at least examining some of your side. Even if we end still fully disagreeing I feel we will understand each other better and maybe avoid some of the hyper-emotionality these talks tend to have and maybe some of the worst of each other's preconceptions.

I don't believe in unicorns, fairies, demons, leprechauns, angels or gods because my critical faculties tell me there is no evidence of them. They are simply the figment of our fertile imagination. I don't feel the need, nor am i required by others, to disprove unicorns or call myself a non-unicornist. So why God? This i believe is where evidence in itself is not the most important criteria in religious belief. It is the physcology of religion that creates the dilemma. The feeling of superiority our intelligence affords us that leads to expectations that we would not allow for any other species i.e. that we should continue to live on in some form. That this paltry life should not be all we are due. Our inability to deal with loss of loved ones and the desire to meet them again on some plane. Most of us can readily accept that there is no doggy, or cat or horsey etc heaven and that we will never see our favorite pet again but to never again meet our mother, sister, brother ... it's not religion per se but some believe in ghosts to alleviate this sense of loss. Man created god in his own image to fufil a function and to fully understand the religious we must recognise this in order to understand that evidence in itself is not the basis of belief. Organised religion is an exercise in deliberate self-delusion. The most interesting aspect of this, for mr at least, is not 'does god exist?' but 'why does god exist?'

Considering God doesn't exist, the argument is irrelevant ?? oh the joys of being an atheist.

I specifically describe myself as Atheist because I firmly understand that everything that exist today is factual, explainable and does not require a god hence no god exists. I tend to interpret that Agnostics are reserving judgment specifically when pushed at trying to answer the famous theist question: What existed before the Big Bang or what started it? Agnostic are closer to Deism than Atheist on that level.

The main difference I observed between both is Atheist tend to be scientific and Agnostics, spiritual.

a clear way to demonstrate the difference is when facing the following:
Based on facts every human is mortal.
Atheist: One does not need to observe every death of every human to have ever lived to understand they them selves and everyone around them will die.
Agnostic: It is very clear that humans die but maybe in the way way past maybe a human vampire population existed and are still amongst us today but I'm not sure but still a possibility.

You're right...maybe spend a bit too much time over nothing, though.

Nice I like it

The term agnostic was coined as a sarcastic joke after being repeatedly asked to state his position on belief in a god. The term he made up the term using the name of a sect of Christianity called the Nostics who claimed to know the exact will of God. By adding the A he turned it into the opposite meaning not knowing the will of God. That's not the common meaning anymore. The term Atheist was so associated with negative labels the religious community has successfully attached that many felt a need to create a new term with less negative associations. Agnostic has become that term. I'm still an atheist.