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

That is 100% the way I feel. well 99.9999% anyway. lol

I have to recheck my posts here Keep finding some things left out.

Nice one ??

I really enjoyed your post. I have bit of a different take on it, though. Let me know if you have thoughts.
I'm not particular on what someone calls themselves, I know atheist has negative connotations associated with it and I can see why people avoid it. However, I think the confusion is that theism and gnosticism address two separate prongs of the question and that's what is getting mixed together.
Theism is a belief in god/s. Atheism is lack of belief in god/s.
Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge about something. Agnosticism is claim of lack of knowledge of something.
Essentially one is dealing with belief, and the other is dealing with claiming knowledge. You can believe there is god/s and claim to know for sure. You can also believe in god/s and claim not to know for sure. You can disbelieve and claim to know for sure, or disbelieve and claim not to know. They are separate questions.
The confusion is that both positions are binary. As you state you don't believe in any god/s. Then you say you don't disbelieve. These are contradictory statements. You can say you hold no belief either way, but that in fact makes you an atheist because you have to have a belief to be a theist. And if you are not a theist, you are by definition an atheist. Now if you want to call yourself something else, that is perfectly fine. None the less, unless you believe it, you are not a theist.
Same goes for gnosticism. You either claim to know or you don't. If you don't claim to know you can't then say but I don't claim not to know. You either do your you don't.
The difficulty, and where I feel this is important, is that claims of existence are by their nature unfalsifiable. Take the statement "fairies exist." Now you cannot prove that fairies don't exist anywhere in the Cosmos. However, currently we don't have any good evidence that they do exist. At some point we might have proof they exist, but we will never be able to prove that they don't or cannot exist. Now the question is do you believe they exist? I'm guessing you don't.
It's the same proposition for god/s, dragons, unicorns, people, gravity, and anything else you can claim exists. The difference is we have proof of things like people and gravity existing and no good proof for god/s, dragons, or unicorns.
This is why I think god claims are ridiculous, because we can make anything up and claim it exists and nobody will ever be able to falsify that claim. But just because you can't disprove something doesn't add an ounce of truth to the claim.
Why it's important to understand the difference is that people act on their beliefs based on what they claim to know. And this is how people can justify burning witches; racism; slavery; and a lot of other horrible things based on unsubstantiated beliefs.
What I don't like about the term agnostic has nothing to do with those who call themselves that, but how it gets used against those who don't believe. Because it's how religions use the term to make the claim that belief and disbelief are on equal footing because you don't know for sure either way. When in fact they;re not. Religions are making claims to know god/s and what they want us to do, and what will happen to us if they don't, as where atheists are just saying "I don't believe you." Atheists aren't making the claim so they don't have burden to prove it false. Theist are responsible for proving their claim is true, otherwise how do we know they didn't just make it up. However, if you're a theist who doesn't claim to know for sure if there is a god/s and what they may or may not want or do and generally have a live and let live policy for others then I don't have a problem with you. I just think you believe for bad reasons.
I think the confusion here is that atheism gets branded as if we are claiming there are no god/s, when that is not the case for most atheists. And for those that claim that, that is something they would have to prove, and you can't definitively prove a negative.
Thanks again for the post, it was very thought provoking.

I am happy to say atheist until I find convincing proof otherwise. That is technically also agnostic, but not in the believer feels better because I am giving credence to their belief and they can assume I mean their higher power is true.

moves over, shares the soapbox, laughs

I bet no other primate has this problem,

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

I often think of a better term ... That takes away the dogma we are opposed to ...

Fantastic post! Thanks for sharing, I really enjoyed your efforts to educate us with cited sources. I find myself in conflict with fellow agnostics/atheists on many levels. I reject the dogma, I reject the required conformity of religion, but I do believe in the concept of a soul. Not as a religious concept, but as a scientific construct. I often find myself with non religious people who don't believe in anything that is currently termed "supernatural". But I continue to study, research, and strive to find truth in the "mind" being an entity beyond the physical brain. I am looking for evidence out of a deep seated belief, whether real or imagined that we are more than our physical body. But I am coming at it from a scientific approach, not theological.

Language is so difficult a thing to use . To try to express what you want to mean can be taken rightly or wrongly. 2 +2 = 4 we know that. That is the language of maths, but when trying to debate finding the correct words, knowing one wrong word, even said with good intentions, can lead to disaster. That said language is a beautiful thing, poetry, songs, or even a simple letter to someone is truly wonderful

For me, it depends who is asking me. If its a religious person I say I'm an atheist so they don't think they can sway me with their testimony. It seems everyone else understands that the unknowable is a variable that can't be ruled out however unlikely, and they never ask me to define myself anyway.

Some atheist rely on the first part of that definition of atheism, just a lack of belief. I think this is an accurate use of the word. Words have multiple meanings. So, I appreciate you being flexible with labels.

Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

I think there is overlap between the 2 definitions. The first part of each line of each definition is close in meaning.

Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief ... in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown ...

Some atheist rely on the first part of that definition. They simply lack belief. I think this is an acvurate

I love your post.

That is an excellent comparison. Labels are, in my world, merely footnotes to communicate general ideas. Dialog is available for clarification in any particular discourse. One of my favorite quotes on the subject is from Steppenwolf in the song 'Rock me': "...if all this should have a reason we would be the last to know..."

“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 don't mind having "labels" to help define my beliefs to others. Personally, I'm both Agnostic and Atheist. I don't believe it is knowable whether there is or isn't a god, but I personally believe there isn't. I can no better prove there isn't a god, than anyone can prove there is one.

I sometimes describe myself as a "don't carist" because I simply don't care whether there is or isn't a god. I will live my life the best I can with the social mores and ethics that have been established over time, in the thousands of years since the concept of god/s crept into the minds of humankind.

There are many forms of literature to help form one's character. The bible doesn't help much in our modern society, as a moral compass. Neither Agnostic or Atheist describe how I get my morality and ethics. Humanist is a better label to further define my spiritual/religious beliefs

I would have to agree with your opinions here.

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

Are you absolutely sure this was your 1st real rant??

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

I've called myself Agnostic from about age 16. I can't and won't tell anyone that I somehow know that there's no "god". How can I prove that something does not exists? Have I really looked under every single rock? I can only promise that I've seen no proof... and not even any evidence that there is. Yup, very unlikely that such a thing exists, but EXTREMELY likely that man has invented all this to make life easier for some and vastly more profitable for some of them as they live off the believers. I'll beleive what science tells and shows me long before I'll believe the guy who says I just gotta believe the whole load on faith... and cuz he says so! But I live in rural WV where people "believe" and are steeped in it from birth. No sense in discussing it.

Ahhh I think I need to smoke more pot to digest all of that...Butttt why all the labels? Im so sick of labels these days everyone has to BE something, Conservative, Liberal, Atheist, Agnostic, christian, Evangelical...Republican, Democrat, Nazi, fascist, fundamentalist, communist, butcher, baker, banker or candlestick maker.

Lets just get rid of all the labels and just BE NICE to one another...

Heres your soap box back, and now Ill take that Joint hah!

@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.