Truth will alway win every discussion. I don't like to argue. Philosophy is the stepping stone to Theology so wrote a great Philosopher on taking the leap. One has to be an Atheist before he can relate his true reasons for such and the only one I ever knew who went this road was Thomas Merton who wrote 'Seven Story Mountain' . The Book of Joel Olsteen is filled with touchy feeley music and total nonsense which brings him in quite and Income. Cadaver Catholic likewise are brainwashed into the stigma of Hell and Damnation if you don't go to Confession. I believe there are only three Sacraments which are listed in the Bible like everything else to include the four Evangelists who were totally illiterate and the fact that if Jesus did exist he was definitely a Dark Skinned Mediterranean and if you want to take a trip to Israel you will be astounded as to what is where and why.
Lost Books of the Bible are being discovered every day and if we don't totally annihilate the Middle East other artifacts and scrolls could be unearthed and who the true authors really are.
Now back to your article. I quote all of the above small inadequacies because I read and investigate. I went to a Catholic College and had to fulfill a Philosophy and Theology requirement that would give me a minor in both fields of Study. My Theology Classes required us to read 'Manchild in the Promise Land', 'The Wretched of the Earth' by Franz Fannon, The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Victor Frankels 'Man's Search for Meaning. We were not brainwashed in any sense of the word and most of the courses went this way which when coupled with the Philosophers left you with a field of exploration and direction that went every which way but your own decision and how to get there. I can truthfully state that I will never go back to that Bible with the Nihil Obstat that is only different from the King James version by one word. They seem to be mute about the other 5000 + other mistakes, misquotes and embellishments. There are beautiful Cathedrals in Europe that are mind blowing works of Architecture, Art and History.Thats where you will find me when I am abroad. Has it changed my view on Religion. Only when I am using if for Historical Exploration. Martin Luther was a phenomenal person who changed the course of Religion with the Reformation. It was only possible through the invention of the Printing Press and other followers who felt exactly the same way that he did and he even went before a Board and defended what he believe was correct. Lots of Blood were shed on those pages.
As far as definitions, semantics and accusation to make a stand I will conclude with one of your closing remarks and tell them to 'Fuck Off' My four biggest areas of contest relate around four very specific groups whom I believe are the greatest threat to our existence. Doctors, Lawyers, Priests and Politicians. I think I could bring to the that query of 'Are you a Liberal or a Conservative' The other is as bad as being a R or D to which I politely inform them that I am a registered Independent and have been all of my life and will remain so.
Does the 'Big Bang' Theory fit into any of the classifications re Atheist vs Agnostic. I would use that mantel as a safe haven from having to make any discussions
Great Article which I hope this response will find my feelings as I wanted to share.

I hear you on this. I call myself an atheist to make it clear I’m a nonbeliever, and also to fight against the stigma again non believers. As if to say “I’m an atheist, this is what we look like.”

Nice text, I agree.
Strong atheism believe in the non existence due to lack of evidences.

Weak atheism is a refusal to believe, just working and taking decisions based on data and facts.

I am using this terminology because on the day to day life and decisions, both will act as if there is no entity.

Go read on Ignosticism, I think is the next step after agnosticism XD

Phew! What a long post and a well written one. It reminds me of Voltaire's Zadig. Zadig came across two groups of people at a temple and they were almost at each other's throats with one group saying that a person should enter the temple with the right foot stepping first and the other group who argued that the left foot should be the first foot to enter the temple. Zadig resolved the matter by jumping into the temple with both feet together.

Also, the scene where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass, springs to mind. One of the many activities of men and women consists in slapping derogatory labels on one another, especially those with whom they disagree. It is as though by name calling they feel or imagine that they have somehow defined and confined that which they find disagreeable.

A person’s opinion about religion is of little importance. Dressing up your opinion with some grand label does not change the fact that we are all abysmally ignorant about the ultimate nature of reality, including ourselves and conscious awareness itself, which is the only thing that enables this discussion.

Silvereyes,. Great post. I can't get past the question about if you believe in God and if so how sure you are. An atheist is 100% sure and agnostics are usually 99.9% sure there is no God. What is missing as you point out is the definition of faith in a God. If someone asks if you believe in God they usually are asking if you believe in the Judeo-Christian version. To that I answer that if I am the one defining what God is then the answer is yes. A non personal , non judgemental life force that is truly ineffable fits easily into my personal belief system. Do you believe in metaphysics , would a better question and for me the answer would be no 100%. That one question aetheist/agnostic is as hard to answer as it is answering my front door when a Jehovah Witness is knocking on it.

Nice post.
The only exception I take to the wording occurs in the following portion of a sentence:
"The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who BELIEVES that there is no god (or gods)," (emphasis mine).
Because many "religionists" argue that atheism is simply another "belief system" when, in fact, it's the lack of belief. The concept of depending on demonstrable facts rather than blind faith in beliefs.
It's a minor point in semantics for us, but those dependent on "faith" use it to argue atheism is just another "faith", which is SO wrong, IMHO.
PS: I realize that the "definition you quoted actually says what I'm saying but I wanted to clarify that, at least for me, belief itself doesn't demand "facts" and so I avoid applying it to myself.

Einstein was constantly badgered and misunderstood because he used the word "god" when he never intended to claim any belief in any personal god whatsoever. His "god" was the universe and how it stood, without sentience of any kind.
Sorry I kind of rambled there. ?

I agree with you and without having done all that research I started calling myself an agnostic atheist. My reasoning was I don't believe in a god or gods like in religion. The agnostic part is because I like to recognize that I don't know what could be , especially when it comes to a power that is the universe , like the laws of physics and quantum mechanics there may be power but I don't believe in a personal God or a Creator God. I guess it's the word god . Its hard to leave off the connotations we grew up with like an old man sitting on a throne in judgment. So just because I believe in something like a higher power or a force in the universe I still think in terms of being an atheist because I don't believe in the gods of religion. Or a god thats separate from religion but is in control of our lives or things that happen.I'm starting to think more and more about other dimensions I do believe we know very little about what's really going on. Anyway thanks for your thoughtful and informative post.

But how do I know which bathroom to use?

Thanks for sharing your pivotal moment. I respect you as a peer and appreciate your friendly spirit. I try to approach every conversation on this site hoping that in the end I kensmile4u and you cansmile4me.

I would bring pot cookies and brownies.

If I brought a Christian friend, would he have to bite his tongue?.

Well I always viewed us as on the same side, and want the same thing. I don't care about the label all that matters to me is that where on the same side.

Thank you for your input.
You did a fantastic job of differentiating between the two and expanding our knowledge of the two.

I identify w/ both terms. Am a human first; labels are useful only insomuch as they aid understanding.

I consider myself an atheist, much to the Chagrin of many other self-professed atheists. I have often been grouped with agnostics by other hardcore atheist but there should be another term I believe, "atheist who just don't give a fuck" maybe? While I am sure someone could argue that because I confess the possibility that there may be an unknown creator, I must also at once confess that I cannot know what is unknowable. I don't mean the unknown, but instead, please, imagine that you woke up tomorrow and someone told you the alphabet has 30 letters and always has, then asks you to write down the missing four letters. That would be impossible for you to know. So when a hardcore atheist says to me, "oh so you think there may be a God but you just can't comprehend it? That makes you an agnostic!"
And I think to myself, "No, it just leaves me alone, in my ignorance of my ignorance."
"Just how stupid am I?" I ask myself sometimes...

I probably won't know until my last breath, so I don't try to answer. But I giggle when I think that one day I will exclaim, "AHA! I get it!!!!"
gurgle
cough
" It is Exactly as...."
cough, cough
die....

Really great dissertation. Little room left for comment. Labels don't help much. I think of the label,on a glass jar. It serves to inform, but also hides the contents from view and makes it difficult to determine how much is left in the jar. Thanks for giving us so much to chew on

The answer to your semantic question hangs totally on your definition of God. (Capital "g" intentional.) Are you referring to a being or a force? Is this being or force interactive (with its creation if you include creator in your definition)? You need to dig down one more layer of verbiage before even considering whether you are agnostic or atheist. My personal answer is: myths are literary and oral stories repeated to perpetuate cultural memes. They are not meant to be taken literally.

i'm of the thinking that gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena cannot be known by the human mind. call me whatever blows your skirt up.

I prefer to call myself a Freethinker. Good post!

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 agree with you on dogma, and the definitions you provided on agnostics and atheists.

How do do you feel about Pastafarianism

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

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

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."

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!