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?'

Unless you actually believe in some god, you are an atheist. If you think that you know that there are no gods, then you are a gnostic atheist. If you don't claim to know for sure, then you are an agnostic atheist. If you believe in a god but are willing to admit you may be wrong, then you are an agnostic theist. If you claim to know that there is a god, then you are a gnostic theist. Theism is about belief in a god or gods; gnosticism is about knowledge.

I am an atheist, not because I say there are no gods, but because I haven't seen a good reason (evidence) to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is simply the lack of belief.

Darling, I agree with you 100%. I'm personally agnostic. I can't say there's something there or not. I, personally, almost had my heart fail while having a csection and something stopped it before the paddles were brought in. There was no medical intervention. I can't say what happened, but I'm not going to full on dive into religion that is a giant hypocrisy. The only thing I have ever disliked about the atheist community has been the belittling and shaming of those who do believe. Especially if that person has been polite enough to not impose their views. I hate it when Christians do it too, but I've met more than my share of atheists that have been giant dicks about it.

Dogma is hard to irradicate - even among the non-religious.

@TheMiddleWay But this site could make a difference to how people see them selves, could it not? It will not proselytise people into Humanism and I hope that I am not seen in this way ,but we need to paint similar banners for our demonstrations do we not? Remember Atheist IS the most hated word in the American public is it not. It is also the easiest to define but a lot of people add a lot more baggage to further their own (twisted?)causes.

Thank you for a well considered and wonderfully written post! ☺
It is amazing how slippery semantics can become; how can we ever get discourse without dischord when we (as a species), are never on the same page? ?

That is why posts like yours are so lovely

"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence, I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist." H. P. Lovecraft
Read more at: [brainyquote.com]

I got half way through that and decided to wait for the movie.

Hi! I'm new here. Love what I am seeing so far. Silvereyes, this post is amazing. If I HAD to define myself....and I don't.....I would say I am an atheist-leaning agnostic. To me this means I don't believe we can know if there is a god or not, but I tend to think not.

The whole issue of the technical distinction between the two words gives me a headache! I've come to have disdain the word Agnostic because I feel it has a connotation of being unsure or confused, which I certainly am not. However, I hesitate to use the word Atheist in some company as a practical matter, because I am aware of the great amount of ignorance that exists. But think about it: if you were to discover that a god exists then so what! That would not make the Bible or any existing religion true. There would still be no dogma or doctrine to follow other than what you have already devised for yourself. And the universe would still be the same indifferent mix of beauty, joy, pitiless extermination, and cruel suffering that it is now. NOTHING WOULD NECESSARILY CHANGE.

Why does everybody but me just automatically assume that "God" or "Allah" is a meaningful word? Unless you can show that it is a meaningful word, you can't use it meaningfully in a sentence either to say "God exists", "God doesn't exist" or "God may or may not exist".

"blurb". Hahaha!

Coincidentally...I have just watched this YouTuber, Rationality Rules, addressing David Mitchell's insistence that he is not an atheist - while claiming to be, the more rational, agnostic. David Mitchell is a very well known UK comedian. The YouTuber, Rationality Rules, is unknown to me until this video popped into my recommended list as I was browsing for funny David Mitchell skits. But Rationality Rules argued his case well.

Jump to about 4min and 25secs in this video:

Rationality Rules rationalises that:
"Theism and Atheism address what you believe. Gnosticism and Agnosticism address what you assert to know."

He makes an example addressing David Mitchell directly: "...If I ask you if you believe in a god, and your answer is 'no', then you're an Atheist. And if you answered 'I don't know', then you haven't answered the question. Either you believe or do not believe. That is, either you're a theist or an atheist. And how certain you are in your belief, that is: how Gnostic or Agnostic you are, is a completely different question. And so since you don't believe in a god or gods, you are an Atheist..."

From his rationale, Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually INCLUSIVE because I can be any of these:
a: a non-believer because there's no proof yet of existence of a god - an Agnostic Atheist
b: a non-believer because I know there's no proof - a Gnostic Atheist
c: a believer because there's no proof yet of non-existence of a god - an Agnostic Theist
d: a believer because I know there's proof of a god. (I hear his voice every morning.) - a Gnostic Theist

Theism/atheism is an answer to "Do you believe?" And Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an answer to "How certain are you of that belief?"

Just another bee in the bonnet.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

Nice post,

I have to keep stating on here that I am a believer, just to distinguish myself from those other labels,and thats what they are,labels.Agnostic,athiest or believer are just stereotypes and do not really cover all the range of beliefs and views any individual can have....which also change as we move through life.

I am not at all religious in that and I too do not think the three Abrahamic religions have any real understanding of God,though some sects in each faith do seek a deeper,more universal, self enlightening spiritual understanding. Gnostics(Christian),Kabbalists (Jewish)and Sufis(Muslim).

Add these to the Bhuddist,Hindu,Taoist,Confucius and even Ancient Greek teachings and you have a common theme,..The Golden rule....the "do unto others" bit.But that is religion for those who can't be bothered with really making an effort about what God may be.

I find agnostics(and many atheists) think about god even more than religious people ,who just turn up at church/synagogue/mosque and do no more than lip service,or worse ,totally ignore what their religion teaches.Having been to see the Vatican I can say that hypocracy knows no better example.Why would any church of god require such flashy shows of treasures and works of art,didn't Jesus throw the money changers from the house of god,what would he do of he should enter the Vatican today?Does the Vatican need to be running a bank?Ok I am wandering off topic....

To me we are all divine it's quite simple ,yes even the atheists!. I see Agnostics are just half way to realising that,but be careful, you might end up tipping into my world view!

But seriouslly once you dive in, the water is lovely.

In any community there is always a contest to out zealot one another. It's the same among non-believers. My twin brother was what I would call an anti-religious bigot with a chip on his shoulder not only toward religion, but religious people themselves. He considered moderate athiests and agnostics to be some lower form of non-believer and called it another form of hypocrisy. After his suicide on 2014 I began to come to terms with my own prejudices. As Socrates so aptly put it, "I know that I know nothing."

I do consider myself an agnostic atheist. I've gone over this in detail on a few other posts on this site, but what I would like to bring up here is that I proudly sport the label "atheist" for a few reasons. One, the fact that it seems to be this "branch" of the spectrum that is the most active in opposing religious encroachment of many of our rights. Two, that "agnostic" on its own seems wishy-washy unless one is really on the fence about the god question. Do you believe there is a creator god or not? If not, you're an atheist. What type or brand of atheist, & the level of commitment can now be added as modifiers. Three, I want to see the term "atheist" used as often as possible in order to have familiarity actually lessen the "contempt" & misunderstanding that that term carries in our society. As it stands, being honest on this subject in this country virtually guarantees that one will not win an elected office, especially any higher elected office. The more the term "atheist" becomes an accepted thing, the sooner we shall stop being seen as untouchables or pariahs.
There has been a good discussion on this here, so I thank silvereyes for the original post. This same question, or variants of it are floating around on this site in various places. It's always good to get different input, either for new information & outlooks, or to help one refine one's own thoughts & opinions.
I'm glad I found this site, even if I still haven't scored a date!!!

Thank you @silvereyes for this post; I very much enjoy how articulate you are, and astutely pointing out some very important things in this whole subject. It was a good read. And educational.

So with that said, I would like your (and others) opinion on the following point. (For clarification, I'll be referring to the Christian god here.) Lack of evidence of god is critical to both atheists and agnostics here, some saying they will hold their stance until such evidence is uncovered, discovered, revealed, whatever... So lack of evidence is critical. Ponder this thought, then read on: what if there was evidence.

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

The import of the verse strongly implies that any evidence that god exists would cause the entire Christian belief to fall like a house of cards. Hence there cannot be any evidence of god. If there was, then god himself would be responsible for undermining the only means of pleasing him and getting rewards. To me, this is an impasse; and a logical flaw in thinking that evidence could exist.

Have I adequately demonstrated that for the Christian god to exist, evidence cannot? No evidence, then no god...

I had a melt down from that last debate (a lot to process), and my brain is still a little soft, but I am still comfortable with agnostic. I still take at face value how ever folks want to identify them selves.

Thank you.

One problem that I have with equating all agnostics to atheists is the stigma it creates. I relate most to my interpretation of an agnostic and don't necessarily consider myself an atheist, some days I may steer more to no God exists; however, for the most part I would hope there are higher order beings who watch us, love us, and protect us. So, I behave in such a way that they do exist, although I know there's a chance there's no afterlife and such because ultimately I don't know. I find no reason to be around any person whom either don't understand, or can care less to understand me. If people assume that all agnostics are atheists, they will assume that I'm an atheist (leaves me with very little room for relationships and a huge space for misconceptions). Consequently, when people see me praying and/ or possess angel ornaments and then proclaim to be an agnostic, they will see me as a walking contradiction and trying to be pretentious,or deceptive. However, I seek something greater than and more eternal than my limited experience stuck on this ball floating in space in retrospect of also thinking there's an infinite number of possibilities for our existential plane in a possible eternal spectrum of time. I haven't met one person though whom understands me. But, to me, it's perfect sense. Therefore, now there are people treating me as if it's all a ploy, and I need medication. I don't fit in with theists or atheists, and I think agnostics are misunderstood in comparison to majority of my studies. In other words, majority of the agnostics and writing about agnostics align with my core beliefs and perceptions of the universe.

After reading some comments and this post, some of you guys succinctly explain most of my thoughts that have never been expressed.

Why do we have to make perfect sense anyway when our senses are limited about things that haven't yet been explored? Yes, on this earth and plane, we have concrete physical laws, but our physical laws may not be the end all of all. I don't speak to convince or sway. I speak for inspiration and for understanding and for recognition of the numerous ways of viewing life as we know it. I also speak to hopefully meet others who relate or who may be inspired to relate with few words and maybe parables. I don't see anything wrong with feeling something to be possibly true (ultimately you never know - those feelings may be the source of something greater - who knows), as long as we do not enslave others to think and believe as we do. Why do we all have to think the same and believe the same thing. You never know as well that we may each have our own journey outside of our human lives that match our unique imaginations or unique string or unique being, as well as, shared imaginations or shared strings or shared waves. One or some may journey to a realm with one God, or some may journey to a realm so physically different from our own it fancies fantasy (defying all laws of physics as we know it and understand it), or some may even disappear into nothingness. I view the universe as possibilities and nothing of which limits these possibilities. We see limitations due to our limited perceptions and abilities. We are all possible - we're here - what stops anything else to be possible in an infinite and eternal existential plane if such exists?

I understand those who want to only focus on the observable and touchable. It's practical and applicable to our lives here on earth. It feels stifling and smothering to limit someone like myself, though. Of course, if you haven't inferred it yet, I understand that I may be wrong.

Reasons why I am not a theist or atheist and relate more to the ideas of agnosticism. Just because you declare to not know something or something may not be knowable, doesn't mean you can't imagine or hope or sway one's belief one way or the other. You also just know that there's a possibility you may be wrong.

Separated by a common language.....

Theist - claims that a god or gods exist
Atheist - does not believe the claim that a god exists
Anti-theist - believes that no god exists or can exist

These are claims about belief.

Gnostic (theist or atheist) claims to KNOW that a god does or does not exist.
Agnostic understands that we cannot know whether a god is possible or not without evidence.

These are claims about knowledge.

Theism and gnosticism are different prongs of the same question, theism is a claim of belief, gnosticism relates to knowledge which is a subset of belief.

Personally, I call myself an atheist. I do not believe the claims of theists and I see no evidence that any gods do or could exist. Do I know that in any circumstance in any universe that it is impossible for a god/s to exist? No, so in the strictest sense I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe any god/s exist, but I know that the null hypothesis is impossible to prove.

And just to clarify, I am referring to all gods.