This is my favorite post.

I've adopted the notion that an agnostic is an atheist who is hedging his/her bet. Personally, I prefer (if labels must be used) '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.

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 need to be enlightened. The letter 'a' used as a prefix in front of the words Gnostic & Theist Does it mean 'not' ?

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.

I find your thesis interesting. I find, however, a very simple way of understanding the term atheist. Like in the term asexual... non sexual, I am non theist. Not so different from your definition for agnostic... With the difference that I do not admit to any all powerful all knowing loving or vengeful god as is defined by anyone I ever heard try. Was there a beginning , and will their be an end to the universe as we understand it? Surely. The universe may have been remade and destroyed uncountable times. I just can not find any room for a self aware being in control of it, willing it to be. Atheist= a non=theist. Agnostic, one who states they are not sure. I called myself an agnostic for years, primarily because of my then wife's family, who were somewhat devout Catholics. That was dishonest though. I do not admit to some god or gods that I simply do not have the evidence for yet. This, I am an a-theist. I'm not terribly antitheist... though that would probably be true as well. Simply because I do not care what most of the world thinks. As a journalist, I am interested in words and how they came to the current meaning we give them. I'm no wordsmith, hardly! I am (was) a photojournalist, but I had to write also. I sucked at English and writing, until I learned that spelling and the names of the parts of a sentence weren't really what writing was about. (Or English as a subject in school) I find your thesis above both thoughtful, and insightful. An interesting combination for one so young as yourself. Get up on your soapbox when ever the mood strikes you!

I absolutely do not believe the Abrahamic god as portrayed in the bible or similar holy texts is real. These holy texts disprove themselves with contradictions and inaccuracies.

I will let it go with your above quoted and reposted text and just go on from there. This is what happens when you have all these books bound together that were never meant to be bound together. It means that your bible is all made up. Gods have written none of it and no gods are trying to get in touch with you. Call me by whatever name you want. This is why I do not believe in god.

Considering God doesn't exist, the argument is irrelevant ?? oh the joys of being an atheist.

This never stops coming up. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive I assure you. The difference is also not hard to remember. All you need to know is that they answer two different questions.

Do you KNOW? no, agnostic
Do you BELIEVE? no, atheist.

Its not hard or contradictory at all to admit we don't know but also have no reason to believe.

I consider myself an atheist. I think that the Universe we see could have been formed without having some intelligence managing its evolution. There are about 2500 versions of gods all over the world. I do not believe in any of them. For better understanding I recommend you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. He explains this much better than I can. It is a short book and may have to read it twice to get a better understanding. I studied electronics which is a branch of physics and it was all mathematics. I got to understand it because in the lab, I could see the math work in the physical world. Later on I was working with very advanced systems used in jet fighters that solidified me as an atheist. This same theory that I have seen work on many occasions does not require a god to jump start a Universe like the one we are in. If quantum mechanics work, which it does, doesn't require a creator why complicate our lives even more. Perhaps in our future there will be another science that explains it all and will be the end of these arguments

I'm glad to think I'm part of your unique crowd @silvereyes,
Hey, let's build a tree house!

Great rant! Occasionally I wonder if I'm actually agnostic, but saying atheist simplifies it. People are not as likely to start in trying to convince me that their religious argument will be the one that converts me. Plus, my agnosticism comes with some caveats. Such as if God is an asshole, I don't believe he is worth worshipping or in other words he or it may exist, but maybe i don't "believe in" him anyway. Also I do believe in something love-driven that we all are accountable to. I don't necessarily believe that this thing is sentient, judging, or controlling, so, not exactly God. I believe that when you love someone and they love you, something survives after death that can be of great comfort to the survivor. The degree of "real" as opposed to seeing what we want to see is unknown to me, but I lean heavily toward the latter. Doesn't mean if I become widowed I won't indulge myself with the sense of comfort a "sign" from my husband would bring. What does this make me? I'm comfortable with the label "atheist" and certainly "skeptic". I don't believe that bad things come in threes or that my black cat will ever bring me bad luck. I don't believe I can just up and manifest anything I desire. But I also understand that being open to the "magical" in life enriches the experience. To each her own but finding my "tribe" of like-thinkers makes life a little sweeter. Like-thinkers don't have to think exactly alike or agree on every definition.

You are an agnostic semanticist. Lol! I am a practical atheist, but I am not sure of much of anything. So maybe I am ideologically agnostic. But not sitting on the fence most of the time.

I bet no other primate has this problem,

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.

“Agnostic/ism” is a term that I have long found to be problematic. The best solution I have found in terms of interpretation requires a bit of philosophical groundwork. Nothing terribly difficult, but very relevant.

The first distinction is between “epistemological” and “ontological” inquiry. Though they may overlap, the basic distinction is that “epistemology” concerns itself with HOW we establish knowledge (e.g., scientific methodology); whereas “ontology” concerns itself with WHAT things are even knowable (e.g., knowledge of the supernatural).

I believe many use the term in an epistemological sense, which is how it appears in the numerous charts floating around. I also believe that is the weakest interpretation of what Thomas Huxley intended and the usefulness of the term. This would operate at levels such as: “have you simply not been informed of claim” [igtheism] – “have you considered claim and don’t have enough information to take a position” – “has claim simply not been sufficiently explained to you?”

Noting the a-/without relationship, “without knowledge” as applied to an ontological argument (what is knowable) indicates that “the question of supernatural existence cannot be answered – or is nonsensical.” Those who hold this to be true largely rely on empirical or natural criteria as a means for evidence. Something that is super-natural exists outside of natural observance. By what criteria could we even establish anything approaching “knowledge” (as opposed to belief) of such a thing?

Moreover, witnessing the effect or impact of super-natural activity on the natural world is purely speculative. Any impact detectable falls within the natural experience and may reasonably point to a natural point of origin (unknown, though that might be).

Towards the end of the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate, Tracey Moody raised the question similar to: “What, if anything, would change your mind (on your position)?” Ken Ham responded, “nothing.” Bill Nye responded, “evidence.” Ontologically speaking, I disagree with both. There is no empirically admissible evidence (Nye) that I can accept that would support the existence of the supernatural (Ham).

Ken Ham responded in reference to his “unshakable” beliefs (not knowledge). Bill Nye responded as an empiricist would of a natural occurrence but skirts the philosophical nature of ontologically addressing something that is asserted (without evidence, and without the capability of evidence) to exist outside of nature or empirical observation.

As an ontological agnostic: “There is no way to possess knowledge of something (supernatural) that exists outside the realm of the natural or empirical.” Epistemological claims fail at this point.

My $0.02.

I call myself an atheist. I really think that science is the big mystery and that we will never learn the depths of it. If a god showed up tomorrow and he was the god of the Bible, I hope I’d be strong enough to stand up to his terror and refuse to bow my knee. He is not worthy of my worship.

The funniest thing I ever heard about agnostics is that they believe in Gosh, and fear if they don't then they'll be darned to Heck.

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.

The ORIGINAL idea behind AGNOSTIC is different from our vancular idea of the word in US today.

It’s “idea”: Humans beings don’t and will never have the intelligence to to answer the question of a god. It’s titalky out of our reach. And may be “designed” that way on purpose. (Last sentence was subsequently added scores later)

In our modern thinking and philosophy: “I don’t think there evidence either way to conclude if there’s a god or not”.

You can see how much these idea disconnected.
Honestly, I prefer the original idea. As an Atheist, I believe NO GOD. And we know just enough science & philosophy to now answer.

I like your reasoning. I call myself an atheist. I am as sure as I can be that there is no god. There is not a shred of evidence that there is a god. There are around 5000 religions in the world, all believing in different gods or different variations. So 4999 of them are definitely wrong. And if that one remaining god does turn out to exist, she could prove her existence beyond doubt with great ease. But she hasn't.

If evidence turns up to prove the existence of a god I'm happy to be proved wrong. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

As you may see from my profile, I identify as philosophically agnostic (can't know for sure) but culturally atheist (not worth my time to consider gods). So there's my reconciliation of the two It's sort of like my attitude towards Bigfoot: I suppose it's possible that there's one out there, but I just don't feel compelled to spend any time looking, because I've got better things to do with my life.

I agree, getting into an argument about atheist vs agnostic is like a Baptist arguing with a Lutheran about which religion is more Christian.

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.