Get out of my head! Point well stated, and exactly!!!

"In broad strokes, I realized agnostic fits better for me. I don't know if a god or creator exists. And, if I have to label myself, I prefer to think in general."

and

"Fuck the labels. If you don't like dogma, you are my people, my tribe, and I'm good with whatever definition you want to use."

WELL DONE!!

Thanks for this post. Love it.

@silvereyes I totally agree with you. Do not like labels. Conflicted between atheist and agnostic myself. Freethinker seems to be an umbrella term. I think I'll continue to use freethinker.

Alrighty..... that's good for me! Great post!

I agree. I don't care what people call me. my opinion is that I don't say That there definately is no god, just that anyone who has tried to present evidence that there is one has failed to produce anything like enough evidence to even cause reasonable doubt. Some would describe me as an athiest others agnostic, or even an agostic athiest. Doesnt matter what you call me as long as people understand the way I think. Also, being an athiest only really says one thing about you anyway, that you don't believe in god. I know athiests who beleive in magic or ghosts. Based on that I prefer the term 'naturalist'. Its not confusing, and it tells people straight away that not only do I not accept there is a god, but I don't accept that there is anything supernatural

This is my favorite post.

Separated by a common language.....

Theist - claims that a god or gods exist
Atheist - does not believe the claim that a god exists
Anti-theist - believes that no god exists or can exist

These are claims about belief.

Gnostic (theist or atheist) claims to KNOW that a god does or does not exist.
Agnostic understands that we cannot know whether a god is possible or not without evidence.

These are claims about knowledge.

Theism and gnosticism are different prongs of the same question, theism is a claim of belief, gnosticism relates to knowledge which is a subset of belief.

Personally, I call myself an atheist. I do not believe the claims of theists and I see no evidence that any gods do or could exist. Do I know that in any circumstance in any universe that it is impossible for a god/s to exist? No, so in the strictest sense I am an agnostic atheist in that I do not believe any god/s exist, but I know that the null hypothesis is impossible to prove.

And just to clarify, I am referring to all gods.

It only gets confusing when I explain my God is science. ;o)

My idea of being an agnostic. Is about protecting the beliefs of all against those who would force their will on others. I believe in science more than any with also the idea of there possibly being some spiritualistic being or beings out there who knows with over 5000 different religions out there. But I want debate. Study. To know and understand all religions and the people under them. The only truth I’ve found is Christianity at its core is evil because of the forcefulness it creates in its followers. So most of my life has been standing up against it for science and other beliefs.

Labels are important because they allow us to communicate faster. If we agree on what a label means, we can use it in order to focus on other ideas. I don't have to explain what a car is everytime I mention that I drove to work. On the other hand, labels can be used to corrupt a definition. McCarthy did that with "communist" and Christians do it with "atheist"; since they have corrupted their definition of atheist, I have to either drop the label when talking to them about it, replacing it with my definition, or educate them (everyone) on the definition. I can only do the former for so long. The core of what I want to say here is: labels are inevitable and if we are allowed to connect labels to any particular definition, we are corrupting communication.

So we need to agree on definitions and the labels that replace them in mundane conversation. How do we do that? Ideally, we should assign one label to each definition, and have labels covering different complexity levels of definitions. For instance: employee = is payed to perform some job; manager = employee that assigns tasks to others. Also, we need definitions to be consistent with knowledge and logic and common use.

Now, let us combine these notions and talk about the labels for people who do not believe in any god. One very early mistake you make is this: "I do not reject the idea of the possibility of a creator of some sort. I do not believe it. But, I do not disbelieve it.". Belief, unlike knowledge, is binary: you either do believe or do not believe. You accept a claim or reject it. Take the favorite example of Traci Harris (AXP): if I have a jar of coins in front of me, there are only two options regarding the number of coins in the jar: it's either even or odd; if I say it is odd, you either believe me or do not believe me. When it comes to the knowledge about this claim: it may be known to be true; it may not known to be true; and it may be known to be false. So you cannot apply a single binary term to label this. You need at least two: one to define your belief or lack thereof, and another to define the level of knowledge you have in regards to that belief.

This is where Christians become important again. "Atheist", for them, is anyone who does not believe their god is real. Then, because of their beliefs, assign to atheist all sorts of corrupt behavior. We have two alternatives then:

1. Stop using the label "atheist". We could all call ourselves "agnostic", or anything else. But the moment you disagree about their god, you will be labeled an "atheist" because that is a sufficient condition for applying the label.
2. Normalize the label. While atheists are a small number of people, they are kept isolated from the larger community, which can then demonize them. But if your coworker, friend, boss, subordinate, are atheists but do not correspond to the label, cognitive dissonance starts ringing and the term must be revised to the common denominator between these people -- disbelief in any god.

Alternative 1 is what folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson take. I think they are doing a disservice to the community in general because (1) it is incorrect to conflate atheist with necessarily making a positive claim that no god exist, and (2) it reinforces the misconception of Christians that atheists are evil. Help your community, let us normalize atheism. To paraphrase X-Men, be atheist and proud

p.s.: shit, that was so much longer than I intended. But that's what you get when labels are off the table. My apologies.

The difference for me has always been a belief/knowledge issue. In a technical sense everyone is agnostic, there is no way to fully know anything. Atheists In my opinion do not put forward a a disbelief or a belief that God is not real, just no positive belief that God is real. Your dictionary definition gets confusing because it describes atheists in 2 different ways. At first it's described as a lack of belief or strong disbelief, the later describes atheism as a belief that there is no God. The strong disbelief corresponds with the second definition, but what I think is more valid would be the "lack of belief" statement. I think atheists are "a theists" or without theology. Doesn't mean they believe a theology is wrong, does mean they haven't been convinced it's correct. Like in court, the options are not guilty or innocent, they are guilty or not guilty. That means either, HE DID IT, or THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE HE DID IT, and the whole time without asserting that he didn't do it.

I don't really see the difference myself , at any one time in my life - ,simply put, I don't have a god. It doesn't worry me that people use different words and give them different meanings - the bottom line is "in this moment I have no god for me it is the 'A" at the beginning of the tqo words that is the important this A in latin is -'without' so 'a'-theist ' is 'without' a god and 'a'gnostic is - without knowing; but at this moment without a god.So we are both in the same place without a god until someone gets gnosis = knowingness.

Nice post,

I have to keep stating on here that I am a believer, just to distinguish myself from those other labels,and thats what they are,labels.Agnostic,athiest or believer are just stereotypes and do not really cover all the range of beliefs and views any individual can have....which also change as we move through life.

I am not at all religious in that and I too do not think the three Abrahamic religions have any real understanding of God,though some sects in each faith do seek a deeper,more universal, self enlightening spiritual understanding. Gnostics(Christian),Kabbalists (Jewish)and Sufis(Muslim).

Add these to the Bhuddist,Hindu,Taoist,Confucius and even Ancient Greek teachings and you have a common theme,..The Golden rule....the "do unto others" bit.But that is religion for those who can't be bothered with really making an effort about what God may be.

I find agnostics(and many atheists) think about god even more than religious people ,who just turn up at church/synagogue/mosque and do no more than lip service,or worse ,totally ignore what their religion teaches.Having been to see the Vatican I can say that hypocracy knows no better example.Why would any church of god require such flashy shows of treasures and works of art,didn't Jesus throw the money changers from the house of god,what would he do of he should enter the Vatican today?Does the Vatican need to be running a bank?Ok I am wandering off topic....

To me we are all divine it's quite simple ,yes even the atheists!. I see Agnostics are just half way to realising that,but be careful, you might end up tipping into my world view!

But seriouslly once you dive in, the water is lovely.

Thank you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in deities.
I'm agnostic because I don't believe I know.
But call me what you want. Skeptical agnostic works as well as atheist.

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.

I find the Atheism= belief and Agnostic= knowledge definitions to be very useful to me. I define myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know but I don't believe there is any god. (And I do broaden mine to all gods)

I usually just say "Atheist". But when someone wants to challenge me the most common objection is "how can you know" That's when I explain that knowing is not what I'm claiming.

All that being said, I don't care what definitions are being used. I just define my terms when speaking to others so we're all on the same page.

what i have been thinking all along

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.

The best we can hope for is to understand or at least tolerate other people's philosophies. And it's not such a bad thing to hope for.

I agree with your own named beliefs- I.e. about rejecting the Hebrew god idea, yet not being able to disprove other types of gods, etc., and stand by my self-definition as "agnostic."

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:

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.

I watched a lot of debates on Youtube around definitions etc, There seems to be this need to try and trip someone up regarding a meaning or definition so that they can do the 'A-ha!' and sweep away everything you believe in. What is promoted as intelligent discourse turns out to be intellectual mumbo-jumbo that leaves everybody tied up in knots! For me it's quite simple. I see no evidence to believe in the existence of a god or gods and so don't and you are welcome to define any label you like for me, I couldn't care less

Also, thanks for doing all that work.

I dig your rant.

To me, these distinctions matter, if at all, philosophically only. For all practical purposes, I am an atheist and I think there is enough rational argument to come to the conclusions that there is no god or creator. This hair-splitting only comes up with religion for some reason. No-one ever discusses whether they are aunicorny or just agnostic about the question if there is pink unicorn revolving around the black hole in the center of our galaxy. We cannot really rule that out so strictly speaking we would have to be agnostic about it. But hell no, I am totally aunicorny in the same way as I am totally atheist. Because the alternatives are just too silly: they explain nothing, they predict nothing, they do not fit into any scientific theory, and they beg to get cut off by Occam's razor.
So, let us cut them off and not waste any more time on them.