Thanks for the info - I am too lazy to look it up myself.

I consider myself as a temporary agnostic in practice (TAP), which basically means that there is no evidence of a deity to confirm whether one exists or not. However, evidence MAY/POSSIBLY pop up in the future that WILL prove that there is.

As far as Christianity goes, I believe the same way as I do with other deities as my views as an agnostic (I don't want to keep on using TAP because it seems weird looking to me, lol). It took me a few years to officially choose to become agnostic due to my commitment to the Christian faith. I was a leader in a youth ministry as a teen, preached, and "led people to the Lord."

I've said things, felt things, experienced things that seemed so real; and maybe it is. But when it comes down to it in a logical and not an emotional perspective, it seems like a fairy tale. Still, it is a struggle with people that I was very close to who were committed Christians as myself, especially our youth minister who I worked closely with. I haven't talked to him directly about this change.

The healings, resurrection of Jesus, people like Elijah being taken to heaven, the commitment to theses beliefs over the few thousand years or so seems to originate from people who have Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses who make people experience hallucinations and delusions (from how society sees them). People don't talk about this at all; if people today have mental illnesses that influences them to have these hallucinations and delusions, then it very likely happened in the past, especially with it not being treated by psychotropic meds as it is today.

Working at a crisis hotline, people have literally told us bluntly that they are God or Jesus. But who knows? Maybe some of these people, or all, are seeing/believing things that are real but in some parallel universe which may be likely due to string theory and the many words interpretation (let's not get into that right now, lol. A good post for later).

In the end, love people, don't judge them, respect people and their perspectives. Because when it comes down to it, everything is a matter of perspective. That's what I have to say for now.

I completely understand and support your view. I have heard many people claim that atheism is more logical or scientific than agnosticism but based on your definitions and others I've seen it seems to me that atheism is as based on logical galaxy than religion because it equates absence of proof with proof of absence.
On the other hand, because of the roots it could be argued that atheism opposes the worship of something that can't be proven to exist, although that might be antitheism. Regardless, as you said it's still semantics.
As a writer I value the precision of communication but usage is where words are truly defined. I agree that labels limit all of us a well. I think taking the time to know individuals and their ideas rather than defining them as a group would not only foster greater communication here but with those who practice religion as well.

I like simplicity, and it is really simple to look at the prefix and root words.

a- means without

-gnostic comes from the word gnosis, meaning knowledge.

-theism is the belief in a god or gods

Simply an agnostic knows of no gods (but might believe, given proof, or as pointed out might believe but not "KNOW" God) while an atheist believes there is(are) no god(s). That lines up with the definition that Webster so kindly published.

"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.

"but in my mind these two concepts contradict. How can you both not believe (disbelieve) and claim unknowability?"
Easily, you do it too.
Do you believe you'll be dead in 30 minutes time?
I'd assume the answer is no.
Can you know right now that you won't be dead in 30 minutes time?
No.
So it's not at all contradictory to disbelieve something while simultaneous accepting you can't know it.

The difference for me has always been a belief/knowledge issue. In a technical sense everyone is agnostic, there is no way to fully know anything. Atheists In my opinion do not put forward a a disbelief or a belief that God is not real, just no positive belief that God is real. Your dictionary definition gets confusing because it describes atheists in 2 different ways. At first it's described as a lack of belief or strong disbelief, the later describes atheism as a belief that there is no God. The strong disbelief corresponds with the second definition, but what I think is more valid would be the "lack of belief" statement. I think atheists are "a theists" or without theology. Doesn't mean they believe a theology is wrong, does mean they haven't been convinced it's correct. Like in court, the options are not guilty or innocent, they are guilty or not guilty. That means either, HE DID IT, or THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE HE DID IT, and the whole time without asserting that he didn't do it.

Short version of my long answer is...It's usually agnostics who quibble about such bullshit. You know what you are. Any one trying to tell you what you are is an asshole so fuck em, I say. Now at the risk of being an asshole myself I 'm going to label you a pretty cool person. The kind I like. wink wink.

I really enjoyed your post. I have bit of a different take on it, though. Let me know if you have thoughts.
I'm not particular on what someone calls themselves, I know atheist has negative connotations associated with it and I can see why people avoid it. However, I think the confusion is that theism and gnosticism address two separate prongs of the question and that's what is getting mixed together.
Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is lack of belief in god/s.
Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge about something. Agnosticism is claim of lack of knowledge of something.
Essentially one is dealing with belief, and the other is dealing with claiming knowledge. You can believe there is god/s and claim to know for sure. You can also believe in god/s and claim not to know for sure. You can disbelieve and claim to know for sure, or disbelieve and claim not to know. They are separate questions.
The confusion is that both positions are binary. As you state you don't believe in any god/s. Then you say you don't disbelieve. These are contradictory statements. You can say you hold no belief either way, but that in fact makes you an atheist because you have to have a belief to be a theist. And if you are not a theist, you are by definition an atheist. Now if you want to call yourself something else, that is perfectly fine. None the less, unless you believe it, you are not a theist.
Same goes for gnosticism. You either claim to know or you don't. If you don't claim to know you can't then say but I don't claim not to know. You either do your you don't.
The difficulty, and where I feel this is important, is that claims of existence are by their nature unfalsifiable. Take the statement "fairies exist." Now you cannot prove that fairies don't exist anywhere in the Cosmos. However, currently we don't have any good evidence that they do exist. At some point we might have proof they exist, but we will never be able to prove that they don't or cannot exist. Now the question is do you believe they exist? I'm guessing you don't.
It's the same proposition for god/s, dragons, unicorns, people, gravity, and anything else you can claim exists. The difference is we have proof of things like people and gravity existing and no good proof for god/s, dragons, or unicorns.
This is why I think god claims are ridiculous, because we can make anything up and claim it exists and nobody will ever be able to falsify that claim. But just because you can't disprove something doesn't add an ounce of truth to the claim.
Why it's important to understand the difference is that people act on their beliefs based on what they claim to know. And this is how people can justify burning witches; racism; slavery; and a lot of other horrible things based on unsubstantiated beliefs.
What I don't like about the term agnostic has nothing to do with those who call themselves that, but how it gets used against those who don't believe. Because it's how religions use the term to make the claim that belief and disbelief are on equal footing because you don't know for sure either way. When in fact they;re not. Religions are making claims to know god/s and what they want us to do, and what will happen to us if they don't, as where atheists are just saying "I don't believe you." Atheists aren't making the claim so they don't have burden to prove it false. Theist are responsible for proving their claim is true, otherwise how do we know they didn't just make it up. However, if you're a theist who doesn't claim to know for sure if there is a god/s and what they may or may not want or do and generally have a live and let live policy for others then I don't have a problem with you. I just think you believe for bad reasons.
I think the confusion here is that atheism gets branded as if we are claiming there are no god/s, when that is not the case for most atheists. And for those that claim that, that is something they would have to prove, and you can't definitively prove a negative.
Thanks again for the post, it was very thought provoking.

Fantastic post! Thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed your efforts to educate us with cited sources. I find myself in conflict with fellow agnostics/atheists on many levels. I reject the dogma, I reject the required conformity of religion, but I do believe in the concept of a soul. Not as a religious concept, but as a scientific construct. I often find myself with non religious people who don't believe in anything that is currently termed "supernatural". But I continue to study, research, and strive to find truth in the "mind" being an entity beyond the physical brain. I am looking for evidence out of a deep seated belief, whether real or imagined that we are more than our physical body. But I am coming at it from a scientific approach, not theological.

What would one call a person who does believe in a "prime source" but is determined to, come judgement day, insist that that entity be judged because of the evil it has perpetrated upon humanity. One might say this person hates "god". And do not reply that this woudl be satan worship since satan is a made up being , just as all the gods ever dreamed up.
My belief is that there is/was an entity that created everything, including cancer, malaria, dementia and every evil that can befall mankind , alzheimer's being the worst of all, and that this entity must be held accountable for it's atrocity. I know this is not atheism nor agnosticism , just wondering.

All true I would say, but for prefixes being a cause of the confusion. The "confusion" lay in religious indoctrinators defining the words to suit their own purposes and disseminating them. This is why people get the question "Do you worship the Devil?" I dare say very few ever came up with such nonsense on their own.

Yes there is a creator, modern man calls her nature, her and the big bang is what led to our creation.

I regard [a]gnosticism as a knowledge position and [a]theism as a belief position. My knowledge position is agnostic -- I don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there are no gods. And my belief position is atheistic -- I don't see a valid reason to believe in any god.

Classic Huxlian agnosticism IS as you describe it ... the notion that not only do I not personally stake a knowledge claim one way or the other -- but that it's not even doable. I hold to this, because invisible beings allegedly outside the natural order are inherently non-falsifiable.

However, many modern agnostics are "soft" agnostics who just profess to be personally "not sure", implying that some new information could change that in the future. What information that might be, they never seem to say. i think this latter, watered-down agnosticism is responsible for the notion that agnosticism is some sort of way-station between belief and unbelief. Theists find this idea pleasing because uncertainty is far less threatening and taboo than unbelief, and besides, such an agnostic might still be persuadable. They tend to consider atheism too irredeemable to hold out the hope of [re]conversion.

Another major reason for "agnostic atheism" is that it circumvents the argument that atheism is inherently "arrogant". If atheism claims to KNOW there is no god, that argument finds some purchase, because you'd have to be god yourself -- be everywhere and everywhen -- to LITERALLY stake such a knowledge claim. And fundamentalists are nothing if not literal. I am willing to not KNOW there is no god, even if on a technicality, to emphasize that atheism is really a different beast: not affording belief to the unsubstantiated and/or highly unlikely.

To me, "there is no god" is a semantic shortcut that would be reasonable in any other discussion but this one. I live my life exactly as if I were making such a knowledge claim. The difference between being 100% sure and 99.9999% sure isn't a practical difference. But I'll be damned (ha!) if I'm going to give a believer an excuse to dismiss a considered, substantial certainty with mere arrogance.

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.

An agnostic is essentially a "weak" atheist by definition. I consider myself an atheist/agnostic in that I, 1) have no belief in any god(s) and, 2) I see no evidence either way.

Important topic. Thanks for putting the time into that. If you believe that the abrahamic god is real, clearly you cannot be either agnostic or atheist. If you beleive that the abrahamic god is definitely a fiction, you can't be agnostic. If you are open to the idea that some as yet undiscovered divine creator being might exist, you cannot be an atheist. That is why I think I might prefer the term antitheist for myself. See the definition of antitheism and see if it fits your situation. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I find my self often having to define both terms. I gets quite tiresome. The only time I bother with this is when theist make statements like "atheist belive in God the just deny it" or "You can't be agnostic and atheist". Then I have to "school them". With knowlege comes understanding, with understanding comes tolerence.

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.

@silvereyes I totally agree with you. Do not like labels. Conflicted between atheist and agnostic myself. Freethinker seems to be an umbrella term. I think I'll continue to use freethinker.

Thank you, silvereyes, you show your depth in your posts. I think I use, Agnostic, because there are so many believers around me of different denominations. As you stated so well, the ultimate reality is unknowable. In other words, I DON'T KNOW! I know that there are believers out there that insist there IS no doubt about the existence of God/god(s) in the positive. An acquaintance once asked whether I was willing to believe in a god, and I answered, "It depends on what day of the week and what mood I'm in." As I have stated in another post, god could be a far more technologically advanced society or a group of experimental lab technicians.

What do you atheists not believe in? "God"? What the dickens is that? What do you agnostics withhold judgment on the existence of? "God"? What the dickens is that? An infinite omnipresent incorporeal spirit that created everything but the infinite omnipresent spirit that created everything but itself? What the dickens is that?

I've also traveled that agnostic/atheist trail, and have come this conclusion: I am a post Big Bang atheist, and a pre Big Bang agnostic. I know - we shouldn't think in terms of 'before the Big Bang since time started then, but that is my stand. We pretty well have it nailed that the universe started at the BB, but those first few microseconds after the start is still a mystery. 'Before' the BB is so out there I can't even speculate

I consider myself an agnostic theist. I believe there is a "higher power" but don't believe I'm in possession of enough evidence to define that power. I don't think the power is an intelligent being who divvies out favors based on who prays the most eloquently or demonstrates the most piousness, but a force like gravity or inertia that follows measurable laws and offers consistent results.

It's really quite simple. Gnostic and agnostic refer to knowledge. Atheist and theist refer to belief. The two terms neither contradict nor mutually exclude each other.

This was well thought-out, and well written, thank you for sharing your thoughts and the result of your searching and cogitating! Agnostic and atheist are similar terms, but, yes, they define different perspectives. I call myself an atheist because I strongly believe that there is no god (or are no gods), and that works for me.