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

Without labels we can not exist as we can not exist without words.

And that's good until we just create and use labels.

But at the moment labels conquer our thinking and program it, things can get worse.
Therefore, we must always leave blank drawers in our brain for "types" that are new and unknown for us, or are in a “between” position; and not only to see labels instead of the people behind them.

I also do not think atheism and agnosticism is the same thing. The agnostic stance with regard to things that can not prove are not provable would be better suited to any truth-seeker and would contribute to the objectivism of scientists, researchers, scholars, writers, etc.

But there are many disturbing things in , whose absurdity can be proven (for example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception). This is where agnostics, atheists, and any kind of truth-seekers can meet.

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.

No, they are fundamentally different. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and other types of magic with the smallest of probabilities of Santa-is-real level of insignificance that we are wrong. That is just in case we are hugely mistaken about our state of knowledge about the Universe. Agnosticism, with it's belief that existence of gods and other forms of magic is unknowable, is magical thinking in itself.

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]

Ahhhh yes, labels and semantics. I don't like either. However, people of influence have made labels "matter". So I have to use the label "atheist" to get people away from asking me silly religious questions.

My understanding was atheist is someone who does not believe and feels they know there are no gods. And that agnostic meant you don't know and don't care to know because it has no bearing on your life.

I chose, long ago, to let that all go. Humans tend to overcomplicate things and this is quite a complex subject. I don't even know what it's called when someone can't deny all gods. I wouldn't even try to guess. My brain hurts enough from all the thinking I do lol.

To each their own I feel. I only say atheist to get my point across and I come to sites like this to speak to like minded individuals. The labels and words themselves are meaningless to me.

Very good post though!

It's probably safe to say we will never know for certain anything in this lifetime anything about the supernatural, that's if it even exists ?

I agree that whatever label you choose for yourself is your label. I do have to clarify a few things you may have overlooked.

The root of atheist is Greek it was used as early as 300 bce. The a prefix is the direct negation of a thing and theist comes from theos which basically means believer so atheist would simply be anyone who isn't a believer. Gnostic was also in use well before Huxley added the prefix and gnosis means knowledge.

So the agnostic/Gnostic claim deals with knowledge and the atheist/theist claim refers to belief. One can believe without knowing. You can say you believe but don't know there are no gods or you believe but don't know that there are. Tje huxlean agnostic claim tries to cut this off at the knees by saying it is unknowable but you still believe or not. It is an inescapable dichotomy.

This is still a popular spot to post. You only have to read the "Learn" on our site to see that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive.

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...

Sorry but society has conditioned us to choose just one and then to believe that it is the only acceptable one.
So for people challenge another person’s anything is just natural social behavior but good rant by the way

The basic difference between the Atheist and Agnostic is:
The Atheist says, there is no Great Bunny Rabbit, period!
The Agnostic says, there is no PROOF of the existence of a Great Bunny Rabbit; and there is no PROOF that there isn't a Great Bunny Rabbit!

My experiences agnostic is not knowing,if you don't know there's a God if you're not 100% convinced make no bones about it you are an atheist. Anyway faith is pretending to know what you don't know. And if you can't show it you don't know it.

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

I will share that I dislike when a person tells me I can not be an atheist /agnostic or visa versa. Atheist is simply my belief. Agnostic is my scientific position. I am a Humanist too. I believe there is not a god(s), However, I can not prove it factually. Both theses terms are important in my self-identity a part of me. Thank for the thoughtful writing.

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.