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.

Brilliant !!

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!

Why does everybody but me just automatically assume that "God" or "Allah" is a meaningful word? Unless you can show that it is a meaningful word, you can't use it meaningfully in a sentence either to say "God exists", "God doesn't exist" or "God may or may not exist".

The whole issue of the technical distinction between the two words gives me a headache! I've come to have disdain the word Agnostic because I feel it has a connotation of being unsure or confused, which I certainly am not. However, I hesitate to use the word Atheist in some company as a practical matter, because I am aware of the great amount of ignorance that exists. But think about it: if you were to discover that a god exists then so what! That would not make the Bible or any existing religion true. There would still be no dogma or doctrine to follow other than what you have already devised for yourself. And the universe would still be the same indifferent mix of beauty, joy, pitiless extermination, and cruel suffering that it is now. NOTHING WOULD NECESSARILY CHANGE.

"‘Atheism’ is a much simpler concept than ‘Christianity’ or ‘Hinduism’, but the word atheism is still used in a wide variety of ways.

This can cause confusion. Someone may announce that she is an atheist, and her listeners may assume she is one type of atheist, when really she is a different type of atheist.

So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism, organized into 7 sets. Some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot. For example, it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic, narrow, friendly atheist. But one cannot simultaneously be both a passive atheist and a militant atheist.

This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism.

For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.”

1. Difference in Knowledge
   A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.

An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.

2. Difference in Affirmation
   A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.

A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.

3. Difference in Scope
   A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
   An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.

An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.

A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.

5. Difference in Openness
   A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.

An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.

6. Difference in Action
   A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.

An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.

A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)

7. Difference in Religiosity
   A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.

Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist.

I see no decernible difference. I once used the term Agnostic to self identify, mostly because it had a softer cannotation than Atheist and I wasn't as informed as I am now. I now identify as an Athiest or Secular Humanist even though the labels are mostly meaningless in everyday life. I still do not Assert that there Is NO God (which would shift the burden of proof) even though I am quite confident that one does not exist, but it is not absolute (that is my agnostic part). Similar to Guilty or Not Guilty: We aren't asserting innocence only NOT Guilty on the basis of "Lack of Evidence".

Hi! I'm new here. Love what I am seeing so far. Silvereyes, this post is amazing. If I HAD to define myself....and I don't.....I would say I am an atheist-leaning agnostic. To me this means I don't believe we can know if there is a god or not, but I tend to think not.

I got half way through that and decided to wait for the movie.

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.

@TheMiddleWay ”Precise thoughts come from precise language”. I do not agree with this. Words stay mostly constant and persist long past their usefulness e.g gay . It is the meaning which changes (and this is the same for definitions which are often personal ) and we cannot stop people changes meaning for their own sometimes twisted purposes. Gay changed its meaning to cheer up homosexuals to be more in line with their behaviour.
Words often encompass two or more categories. Most Humanists are also Atheists -I am not.
Surely what we are searching for is blanket word that covers many concepts AND puts the most important things up front. Christ does for describing Christians and Human is the most important statement that only humans figure in our explanations.

BTW Most gays are not unusually cheerful in my experience -they are just ordinary people.

@TheMiddleWay But this site could make a difference to how people see them selves, could it not? It will not proselytise people into Humanism and I hope that I am not seen in this way ,but we need to paint similar banners for our demonstrations do we not? Remember Atheist IS the most hated word in the American public is it not. It is also the easiest to define but a lot of people add a lot more baggage to further their own (twisted?)causes.

@EdwinMcCravy: You say meaningless for 'God' but other people do put their own meaning whenever they hear it. Any ideas about how to stop everyone hearing it ever again?
This is why I am not a secularist, people who believe in keeping it separate.I believe it will take so long to go away that it is a waste of effort to form partitions when we could be engaged in getting it to actually go away - however slowly.

This was a really good post but I still prefer to label myself as an atheist because I see the Universe itself as coming out of nothing.

“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”
― Stephen Hawking

Basically, if we refer to the Webster definitions, all agnstics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostics. That seems simple enough.

“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 know it's just me ... For me agnosticism is atheism with an airbag

You are on a journey. One that I took. Eventually, I "believe" you will end up a Humanist.
I could define that word, for our reasons, as we are all humans. Some have beliefs in supernatural beings and others doubt we can know.
Agnosticism is the preferred philosophic position, but I find Humanism the friendliest. Once again, we are all humans.
G

As others have pointed out, gnostic relates to a claim of knowledge while theism relates to having belief. They are two separate points that can be mixed and matched either way.

A gnostic theist claims knowledge of and belief in a god. An agnostic theist believes, but claims no knowledge of. A gnostic atheist doesn't believe, and claims to know about god's existence. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe, but claims no knowledge to the existence of a god.

can anyone claim to have read this post, from start to finish ? rule one, keep your comment as brief and to the point as possible, even if you have a million points !

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

Interesting but at the end of the day an agnostic cannot call themselves a theist so I kinda think the point is moot. For some of us who go so far as saying we are anti-theist, we are angry that the Lords prayer is said at beginning of parliament, swearing on bible in court and religious instruction in schools. I find religion divisive and feel the world would be a better, kinder place without it so I will proudly shout ATHEIST.

Nice rant Silvereyes. With you all the way! Make sure you put the soapbox away safely. I'm looking forward to the next one

I completely agree. Aren't we all united in our doubt?

Darling, I agree with you 100%. I'm personally agnostic. I can't say there's something there or not. I, personally, almost had my heart fail while having a csection and something stopped it before the paddles were brought in. There was no medical intervention. I can't say what happened, but I'm not going to full on dive into religion that is a giant hypocrisy. The only thing I have ever disliked about the atheist community has been the belittling and shaming of those who do believe. Especially if that person has been polite enough to not impose their views. I hate it when Christians do it too, but I've met more than my share of atheists that have been giant dicks about it.