I agree with you and without having done all that research I started calling myself an agnostic atheist. My reasoning was I don't believe in a god or gods like in religion. The agnostic part is because I like to recognize that I don't know what could be , especially when it comes to a power that is the universe , like the laws of physics and quantum mechanics there may be power but I don't believe in a personal God or a Creator God. I guess it's the word god . Its hard to leave off the connotations we grew up with like an old man sitting on a throne in judgment. So just because I believe in something like a higher power or a force in the universe I still think in terms of being an atheist because I don't believe in the gods of religion. Or a god thats separate from religion but is in control of our lives or things that happen.I'm starting to think more and more about other dimensions I do believe we know very little about what's really going on. Anyway thanks for your thoughtful and informative post.

Nice post.
The only exception I take to the wording occurs in the following portion of a sentence:
"The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who BELIEVES that there is no god (or gods)," (emphasis mine).
Because many "religionists" argue that atheism is simply another "belief system" when, in fact, it's the lack of belief. The concept of depending on demonstrable facts rather than blind faith in beliefs.
It's a minor point in semantics for us, but those dependent on "faith" use it to argue atheism is just another "faith", which is SO wrong, IMHO.
PS: I realize that the "definition you quoted actually says what I'm saying but I wanted to clarify that, at least for me, belief itself doesn't demand "facts" and so I avoid applying it to myself.

Einstein was constantly badgered and misunderstood because he used the word "god" when he never intended to claim any belief in any personal god whatsoever. His "god" was the universe and how it stood, without sentience of any kind.
Sorry I kind of rambled there. ?

I can identify. Maybe I am an agnostic atheist. I was once a believer in the Abrahamic god but have come to realize that there is no proof of any gods and various holy books are only the writings of those who believe. The books are written by men and not supreme beings. What is a god? Having a god who is greatly concerned about my sex life is disturbing. Make this god all powerful and yet have him unable to do things is more disturbing yet. It gets much worse when I discover how the holy books were assembled and how long it took to get them in our present forms today. Belief in gods of any sort is much worse than science fiction.

I'm still working with freethought tho.

A person’s opinion about religion is of little importance. Dressing up your opinion with some grand label does not change the fact that we are all abysmally ignorant about the ultimate nature of reality, including ourselves and conscious awareness itself, which is the only thing that enables this discussion.

It's certainly not black and white. Like with music genres, it's all a blur, and as you point out, much of it depends on how an individual defines it for themselves. You say potato... blah!

Phew! What a long post and a well written one. It reminds me of Voltaire's Zadig. Zadig came across two groups of people at a temple and they were almost at each other's throats with one group saying that a person should enter the temple with the right foot stepping first and the other group who argued that the left foot should be the first foot to enter the temple. Zadig resolved the matter by jumping into the temple with both feet together.

Also, the scene where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass, springs to mind. One of the many activities of men and women consists in slapping derogatory labels on one another, especially those with whom they disagree. It is as though by name calling they feel or imagine that they have somehow defined and confined that which they find disagreeable.

Very well written and reasoned.

I have always operated under the definitions you shared above.

I’m quite comfortable in my atheism. I’m also comfortable with the agnostics uncertainty and the faith of the religious. To each their own.

Nice text, I agree.
Strong atheism believe in the non existence due to lack of evidences.

Weak atheism is a refusal to believe, just working and taking decisions based on data and facts.

I am using this terminology because on the day to day life and decisions, both will act as if there is no entity.

Go read on Ignosticism, I think is the next step after agnosticism XD

I hear you on this. I call myself an atheist to make it clear I’m a nonbeliever, and also to fight against the stigma again non believers. As if to say “I’m an atheist, this is what we look like.”

to me it's quite simple. i consider myself an atheist b/c i don't believe in a god that could give a shit (if gods shit) about the human race.
however, i do not disbelieve the possibility that there is a superior intelligence out there so that there could be a supreme being.

I'm agnostic, not atheist. I know the difference. Atheists, on the other hand, are actually agnostic, but don't know it.
Glad I could clear that up.

Knowing and believing are two different trains of thought, so you can be both at once.

But if you hate or disagree with The labels, why discuss? I always thought the agnostic term was a bit of a cheat, bit of a non- commit all type stance. If you can’t believe in any god, then you are automatically named an atheist.
To me the possible other theory is alien intervention from way back. The research is very defendable given the monuments left and scriptures indicating this.
As you said, it is a totally individual opinion and should be respected as such. Just joined so not sure of the format of these discussions x

Truth will alway win every discussion. I don't like to argue. Philosophy is the stepping stone to Theology so wrote a great Philosopher on taking the leap. One has to be an Atheist before he can relate his true reasons for such and the only one I ever knew who went this road was Thomas Merton who wrote 'Seven Story Mountain' . The Book of Joel Olsteen is filled with touchy feeley music and total nonsense which brings him in quite and Income. Cadaver Catholic likewise are brainwashed into the stigma of Hell and Damnation if you don't go to Confession. I believe there are only three Sacraments which are listed in the Bible like everything else to include the four Evangelists who were totally illiterate and the fact that if Jesus did exist he was definitely a Dark Skinned Mediterranean and if you want to take a trip to Israel you will be astounded as to what is where and why.
Lost Books of the Bible are being discovered every day and if we don't totally annihilate the Middle East other artifacts and scrolls could be unearthed and who the true authors really are.
Now back to your article. I quote all of the above small inadequacies because I read and investigate. I went to a Catholic College and had to fulfill a Philosophy and Theology requirement that would give me a minor in both fields of Study. My Theology Classes required us to read 'Manchild in the Promise Land', 'The Wretched of the Earth' by Franz Fannon, The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Victor Frankels 'Man's Search for Meaning. We were not brainwashed in any sense of the word and most of the courses went this way which when coupled with the Philosophers left you with a field of exploration and direction that went every which way but your own decision and how to get there. I can truthfully state that I will never go back to that Bible with the Nihil Obstat that is only different from the King James version by one word. They seem to be mute about the other 5000 + other mistakes, misquotes and embellishments. There are beautiful Cathedrals in Europe that are mind blowing works of Architecture, Art and History.Thats where you will find me when I am abroad. Has it changed my view on Religion. Only when I am using if for Historical Exploration. Martin Luther was a phenomenal person who changed the course of Religion with the Reformation. It was only possible through the invention of the Printing Press and other followers who felt exactly the same way that he did and he even went before a Board and defended what he believe was correct. Lots of Blood were shed on those pages.
As far as definitions, semantics and accusation to make a stand I will conclude with one of your closing remarks and tell them to 'Fuck Off' My four biggest areas of contest relate around four very specific groups whom I believe are the greatest threat to our existence. Doctors, Lawyers, Priests and Politicians. I think I could bring to the that query of 'Are you a Liberal or a Conservative' The other is as bad as being a R or D to which I politely inform them that I am a registered Independent and have been all of my life and will remain so.
Does the 'Big Bang' Theory fit into any of the classifications re Atheist vs Agnostic. I would use that mantel as a safe haven from having to make any discussions
Great Article which I hope this response will find my feelings as I wanted to share.

I have to agree with you on this, interpretation is on each one of us. I actually ran into a profile on another dating site where the woman said atheist only, no agnostics. At least atheist are willing to commit to an idea.

Great rent!!

Very good interpretation.

I’ve called myself an “Agnostic” because it’s less polarizing to women who detest the label “Atheist”. Somehow they seem to thing that an “Agnostic” is “more human, more Christian (sic)” than an “Atheist”.

Wow, what a post! But yeah. Basically you can't prove something doesn't exist. If you believe 'that' then Atheism really can't exist.

There.

Love your post!! My interpretation of atheist and agnostic is one is what you believe (atheism) and the other one is what you know (agnostic). I know several atheists who call themselves agnostic atheists because they admit to not knowing a God actually exists but do not actively believe in one.

Richard Dawkins in his book the God delusion came up with a 7 point scale (see link below). To be honest, this helps people determine where they are at on the spectrum.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Do we come from the same mother? I've tried and tried, but can never successfully use one word or the other and have the listener totally get what I'm saying... I think that may be the impetus behind those who try and educate others, so as to avoid this ambiguity. At the end of the day, engaging in such discussions requires a prologue so each participant can define their terms and meanings. It can get tiresome, but it seems to be necessary.

Personally, I avoid the term "atheist" mostly because of the bad rap it's received with the new - almost evangelical - Atheist movement (big "A" ). So, I just say I'm a non-theist in regards to the 3 Abrahamic religions. It suits 99% of my discussions, and doesn't have the negative stigma seemingly attached to "atheism". Similarly, the word "agnostic" implies ignorance, and fence-sitting. (Not my words...). Again, the term non-theist, which is probably closest to being agnostic, doesn't (yet) have a lot of baggage attached to it.

Thanks for the rant Silvereyes; I've missed you and a few others here during my cocooning hiatus. I think I got my juice back...

You can also feel divided because how you feel about your philosophy

Well said. Thank you.

I don't label myself which is why I struggled a bit with the labels in the profile interview. I settled on atheist because it best describes my feeling about the subject. When pressed, I tell people I'm not religious and that usually settles it.