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.

That is the best definition of the spectrum of different beliefs I've ever seen. I am with u...agnostic is my "label " if you will

Man, 320 replies since April. This well formulated post has pushed a lot of buttons. Apparently an issue that lives. For me I don't really care about Atheism or Agnosticism. Choosing a name for your frame of thinking is probably triggered by the need of people to belong. Religion fulfills that need, football (or any sport) does the same. Non religious people have two major choices to distinguish themselves from the world religions if they don't want to belong to another religion. I myself am more a soloist. Not socially, but thinking-wise. I'm just "not-religious". When I tell that to a religious person, it seldom triggers discussion. These people normally do not feel offended (maybe sometimes, when they have huge doubts themselves they might feel uncomfortable). I don't start discussions about who is right or wrong. I don't care. I only have my own thinking as reference. Oh, I do listen, and will think things through later, but why fighting over how you think about whatever. I don't need an army of like minded people to feel supported.
I like to be an individual. Empathic and social minded, but still an individual.

I have always looked at religious and atheist as 2 sides of the same coin...both require faith...1 faith that there is a god and the other faith that their is no god. I have always seen agnostic as more of a middle ground, where faith isn't involved, but believing on what there is proof for and what might be a possibility, but yet unproven.

Meh, I’m trying to figure out how to save you rant. Good shit.

Awesome post thank you for clarifying this and it resonated with me so much

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.

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!

.thanx--does need to be heard;
wish like u that we can move forward;
gives me ammunition for when
someone sneezes--the people are counted who don't say"G*Bless,
sometimes we are the minority

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.

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.

[slate.com]

Here's the article I spoke of. Lol, "At least we know what we don't know.
By Ron Rosenbaum"

Of course your post is brilliant I very much agree that those definition should be clearly defined although how people Define themselves is their own business

my question is if we define god as nature in the style of Spinoza how do we Define ourselves the critical point is Nature Cares About Us or if we were gone nature could go on just fine without us

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

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.

I have decided I really don't care whether there is a God or not. Now I need a term to describe my fervently held beliefs.

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