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.

What is more important than the pedantic differences between words [I did find your analysis good though] is getting a word that is acceptable to peolple starting at either end and coming to a working agreement. Our opponents look for lack of agreement as a sign of weakness. Yes I know they have a lot of weaknesses in this area also.

I was rather hoping that the word Humanist would be the blanket term which covers these and several additional words. The use of these words has served their purposes and now it is time to move on together and with a collective descriptor.

After readng your comments I question my own it all comes down to faith. faith is believing in something without proof

Oh Yeah come to think of it I know many agnostics.

Wow. You warn that this is just your opinion and interpretation but you are being modest. This was very well researched! I still have issues with agnosticism but that's just because I can't conceive that there "could be" a god. Since the point of your post was not to argue for the merits of either side but to clarify the difference between the two, I won't start the argument here. Even if we happen to be on different sides of the issue, for what you posted you get an A+ from me!

Brilliant !!

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.

This is just my opinion, but I always figured the difference this way. If handed proof, or at least a reasonable amount of evidence, an agnostic is willing to change his mind. The atheist is not.

The trouble I have with agnostic is which of the literally thousands of religions do you not disbelieve in? Are you a christian agnostic, a hindu agnostic, a muslim agnostic ????

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.

I contend that belief is an active thing. For any premise, you either believe it or you do not; saying, "I don't know" implies that I do not actively believe. To borrow an idea from Matt Dillahunty (or at least that's where I heard it), knowledge is a subset of belief. Everything you know, you also believe. There can also be things that you believe but do not know, and things that you neither know nor believe.

When you answer a yes/no question with, "I believe so," you aren't expressing certainty; you're saying that you are unsure but believe the answer to be "yes." I see atheism and theism the same way. I don't know that no gods exist, but I don't believe they do, and therefore I call myself an atheist.

I dig your rant.

Also, thanks for doing all that work.

I call myself an Atheist. I believe (there is that word!) there are NO GODS. I have come to this conclusion after some study and some experiences in my life. I cannot PROVE that I am correct.

I am philosophically more of an Agnostic, in that there could be evidence that would convince me, and I have just not seen it. I also feel like this will never happen because lack of evidence does not prove something is not real.

I do not identify myself as an agnostic because religious people hear "Agnostic" and they think "So you just haven't heard my arguments." I have no desire to hear a bunch more damn arguments about GOD.

So for me, the answer is clearly ATHEIST and bugger off you religious nuts!

No offense to any kind of nuts, but that's how I feel.

I believe that gods are a human construct, all life is a result of evolution, and humans have a limited understanding of the cosmos. I tell my friends and family that I am agnostic, only because it is more socially acceptable than being atheist, and I know that is cowardly. I also don't like hurting the feelings of my religious loved ones, so I will often say that I am open to the "possibility" of there being a God... even though I most certainly am not.

first of all, i will admit that i did not manage to read your entire rant-blurb.
just today i had to re-check on my profile whether i still stand behind my claims to be agnostic as well as an atheist...
& hurrah! i am. i do not see nor have i ever seen evidence of a superhuman power apart from nature, & she is sheer energy, the zest of life.
i also am an atheist, not believing in any god - which is easy for me, because i am a relentless non-believer.
one claim i had to take back after some consideration, & that is to be a humanist. not everything that tickles my senses is in my control, in fact, humans have almost no control over the vital things in life. it breathes.

It's worth having a look at Alex O'connor (CosmicSkeptic) on Youtube for arguments along these lines.

He prefers the label "Atheist" because it is a familiar term which people can identify with as a "political" position.

Personally, I identify as agnostic because I can not rule out the possibility of some kind of sentience in the universe distinct from that of an individual animal. I don't believe in one; I just can't rule it out.

This might also be of interest:

For me, agnostic is not strong enough, and really just semantics.

For the nonce, I go with Atheist. Strictly speaking I would not claim certainty but operate as if I do.
I think I do know, as far as one may tell, That there are no superlative, rational agencies extant.
I guess by definition a gnostic atheist.

Funny, I just did a video about this sort of topic.

what i have been thinking all along

Agreed. The absurdity is in both terms because there's rarely a label for "not something". Are you a gymnast? No I'm an agymnast. Do you know about quantum physics? No I'm an agnostic physicist. The utility is only in the rarity. Titles like secularist or humanists make a little more sense, but I get a blank stare if I say those. So agnostic atheist it is I guess. Likewise, neither term describes anything else about me.