Honestly I think we're just splitting hairs here the point is that we try to live our lives empirically and reasonably and logically and we do not subscribe to religious psychosis

Excellent post.

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.

The term agnostic was coined as a sarcastic joke after being repeatedly asked to state his position on belief in a god. The term he made up the term using the name of a sect of Christianity called the Nostics who claimed to know the exact will of God. By adding the A he turned it into the opposite meaning not knowing the will of God. That's not the common meaning anymore. The term Atheist was so associated with negative labels the religious community has successfully attached that many felt a need to create a new term with less negative associations. Agnostic has become that term. I'm still an atheist.

Nice I like it

I have always thought the same as you. Oddly enough I think the term atheist just gives theists more power. It actually gives theists the idea that they are on the same playing field, because of course no honest person can claim to know if we were created by something greater or not.

It could just be my chances when talking to atheists, but it seems they more often say things that disprove the biblical god and act like knowing all the physics behind our world is somehow proof that there is no god. Proving the Abrahamic god is false and knowing everything about physics still doesn’t prove that the system wasn’t set up by something else. Even if it becomes pointless to know, which I believe it is, it still won’t prove or disprove that we aren’t in a simulation.

Also being agnostic does NOT at all mean you think god may exist. It just means you don’t know, and often agnostics don’t even care, which usually isn’t an atheists position. In fact it sets up religious folk up with the most annoying comebacks of all “you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, just like I can’t prove he does” and “if you are so sure that he doesn’t exist, you are believing with religious faith, then I guess that is your religion”
Whereas an agnostic person knows its ok not to know things and is content with the facts that some things are unknowable...which is very much a more honest and scientific stance if you think about it. Scientists don’t claim to know things they don’t and are ok with that, it wouldn’t be scientific any other way.

At best any athest who understands how the scientific model works can only claim there is no god as a hypothesis not a theory. It isn’t a theory until it withstands scrutiny and heavy testing.

You're right...maybe spend a bit too much time over nothing, though.

I specifically describe myself as Atheist because I firmly understand that everything that exist today is factual, explainable and does not require a god hence no god exists. I tend to interpret that Agnostics are reserving judgment specifically when pushed at trying to answer the famous theist question: What existed before the Big Bang or what started it? Agnostic are closer to Deism than Atheist on that level.

The main difference I observed between both is Atheist tend to be scientific and Agnostics, spiritual.

a clear way to demonstrate the difference is when facing the following:
Based on facts every human is mortal.
Atheist: One does not need to observe every death of every human to have ever lived to understand they them selves and everyone around them will die.
Agnostic: It is very clear that humans die but maybe in the way way past maybe a human vampire population existed and are still amongst us today but I'm not sure but still a possibility.

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

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?'

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.

We've been down this road before, and often, so I'm not going to say much. But do notice how often people say God, singular, especially the agnostic position that there is no way to know if there's a god or not. Always or very often the singular. Agnostics are indeed welcome to hold the agnostic position. I merely humbly ask that they say that they are equally agnostic about all gods, ancient and modern, and always use the plural, and really mean that they are as agnostic about the God Apollo, for example, as they are about the Christian God. Like Bertrand Russell, I don't think they are, in practise. I certainly could never say that and truly mean it. Now, as an atheist, I'm happy to shout from the rooftops that I am equally atheist about all gods, every one of them. Indeed, I say so regularly.

I have a problem with the word Agnostic, which is that technically, neither believers nor non-believers can absolutely know, or prove anything. Is not EVERYONE technically Agnostic. I therefore feel the word is largely USELESS except in a few circumstances which I'll get to. What really matters is belief. What does it really matter if you entertain the notion of some sort of god which is absent of any doctrine (religion) or is not a personal god who intervenes in our affairs. It seems to me non-sensical to label yourself based upon anything other than your beliefs, unless you simply wish to avoid the question. Perhaps you don't want the baggage which comes with a label, or don't wish to be pigeon-holed. These are understandable and valid reasons any of us may wish to choose at times a non-commital word such as Agnostic. But let's be honest with ourselves about what is being done. I feel the term Agnostic most makes sense for those truly torn between belief and non-belief. I would presume that for many, though not necessarily all, that would be a transitional and temporary state. There are very few things which can be proven absolutely. The bottom line comes down to what, based on the preponderance of evidence, you find believable or credible. Thoughts?

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.

In logic and probability theory, two events (or propositions) are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur (be true). A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.
Mutual exclusivity - Wikipedia

For those who say the two are not mutually exclusive, you cannot say with certainty that there is no god and leave the door open to the possibility that one could exist at the same time, but at present there is no evidence.

I find the agnostic view the most open minded.

[slate.com]

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

Best rant ever silvereyes. I've read up on this and found an article by a guy defining a true agnostic. His beef with militant athiest was simple--I don't know if there is or is not a god, and I'm fine with admitting I DON'T KNOW. To him, the beauty of being agnostic is to be able to admit "I don't know the answer." Too many people insist on being right, both in the theist and atheist world. I agreed with his essay 100%. If you don't have evidence, don't pretend to know the answer. I don't know, so I am open to the possibility of a higher power. That power has not revealed itself to me as of this post, so I can't say for certain if there is one.

Seems to me theres confusion here about the word "believe." Which is understandable. Google the definition of that word and you get two rather contradictory definitions. We can't define words like agnostic and atheist without first knowing what we mean by the word believe and the problem from where Im sitting is that people use that word differently. I tend to view belief as more of a supposition rather than knowledge, and therefore I don't see atheism as distinct from agnosticism.

Great post! NOT a rant--too thought provoking. Don't put your soap box where you can't find it again.

I always thought that an atheist didn't believe in god, and an agnostic doubted the existence of god but was still open to the possibility of god existing. Anyone else thought this?

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.

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