I like the Dawkins approach of an agnostic scale of 1-7 (on which he variaby professes to be a 6 or 6.9). I like this because it incorporates the unfalsifiability of theism, and encourages the necessary humility I consider to be inherent to the viewpoints.

This is why dialogue/ conversation is important. Not just definitions...
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not that there is an active belief that there is no god.
Just break the word down:
A = Without, no
Theism = Belief in a god/ deity.
But regardless of the definition that you so choose, what matters is what the majority of Atheists stances are.
And they will all state lack of belief. Not an active belief.

I like what the Dali lama said, which was in answer in an interview when asked, what if science proved there was no god? He said ( I paraphrase) then there’s no god. Be nice.

I have decided I really don't care whether there is a God or not. Now I need a term to describe my fervently held beliefs.

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

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.

[slate.com]

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

.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 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.

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.

I'm an Atheist because I believe in zero gods.

I'm an agnostic because I have no knowledge of a God.

Edit

I choose to go by Atheist simply because it is more clear to those who are less knowledgeable than you, and many others on this site. Both terms fit most of us because strong disbelief in the existence of a god and one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of or a god are not mutually exclusive. I really doubt there is a god, to the tune of less than 1%, but I cannot say it is zero and so here we are. Many would have a similar stance with some degree of movement on the %. Others just don't care enough involve math. Either should be accepting of the other.

Wow, what a post! But yeah. Basically you can't prove something doesn't exist. If you believe 'that' then Atheism really can't exist.

There.

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.”

How does this keep turning up as a new post, when in fact it's the Halley's Comet of the Community, the Old Faithful, the Oh No Not You Again!, Oldie but a Goodie, just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water..post?

For the record, I commented eons ago, stating my atheist credentials on it. Can't remember when, but I know I had more hair back then.

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

@silvereyes. Is it not true that this flame up between agnostics and atheists has mostly subsided on this site, compared to the first months of the operation of the site? Seems to me that the two "sides" have accepted that while differences exists, sometimes irreconcilable differences of opinion, that amongst the coalition of the non-religious, we are all ultimately on the same side?

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.

nice.

Nice. I like it.