This was perfectly thought out and summarized the differences well. Great job ??

Well said. Let's not submit to the tyranny of the word police.(Or become the word police.)

Agnostic was a term coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, who was Darwin’s Pittbull. When Darwin released the origin of the species, he didn’t want to debate his critics, so he got this guy named Huxley who was a lawyer that loved to debate and fight to do it for him. Huxley used the term Agnostic in order to force his debate opponents to argue the issue itself rather than try to smear him with labels like Atheist, which was quite looked down on back then.

Now as far as Agnostic is concerned, the term “Nostic” means knowledge, it’s how man comes to know things. So the term Agnostic is used by non-believers to allegedly sit on a fence and not commit themselves to being a full blown Atheist, which was the whole reason Huxley used it, to prevent the distraction during his debates with Darwin’s critics.

But here’s my issue, if someone who is Agnostic doesn’t know whether or not there is a god, then by default this person doesn’t believe. They’re not going to attend Sunday mass as a precaution nor are they going to pray every night before going to bed because they’re on the fence… they don’t know if god exists or not. If they’re not going to commit to Atheism while on that fence, they are also not going to commit to the church as well. While I get that they’re trying to act like Switzerland, this is not what they’re doing.

An Agnostic doesn’t believe in god. It doesn’t mean they are rejecting god, it just means there is not enough evidence at this moment to indicate there either is or isn’t a god. Yet to the religious if you are asked “Do you believe in God” and the answer you give is anything accept yes, they consider you a non-believer. That means an Agnostic person is lumped into the same boat as all Atheists because they also at this point do not believe in god.

So why do some non-believers call themselves Agnostic? Probably for the same reason Huxley did so many years ago, to avoid the sigma and hate that goes along with the term Atheist. It’s not as bad today as it was back then, but I can dig why some non-believers like to use that shield and will not judge them for it. Use whatever label makes you feel the most comfortable.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different religions? Well they start out as unified "all encompassing" , Unitarian etc etc. Then some young buck disagrees with the definition of a word and first a faction join them then it becomes sect , then a completely different church and/or website.
Is this the process happening above? I will start a new topic if this particular post does not draw many responses.

Surely we should be coming together to defeat religion and not splitting hairs . Blanket words Rule!

I call myself an atheist. I really think that science is the big mystery and that we will never learn the depths of it. If a god showed up tomorrow and he was the god of the Bible, I hope I’d be strong enough to stand up to his terror and refuse to bow my knee. He is not worthy of my worship.

I agree fuck the labels . . . Why do we do that? I to find the "educating "process arrogant and bogus. I did like the definitions and found them good and without pretension. I must admit I have felt close to ancestors and felt less alone in a cris because I could feel their energy. Even the ones I didn't listen too when they were alive. Dogma is an evolution whose time has come to be put aside. For me that is

It’s more of a question of gnostic atheism vs agnostic atheism. Gnostic simply means someone is absolutely 100% sure about something, agnostic means someone is not entirely sure. There are gnostic atheists just as there are gnostic theists, to that there are agnostic atheists just as there are agnostic theists. All just different sides of a four sided dice.

Unbelievable!

The funniest thing I ever heard about agnostics is that they believe in Gosh, and fear if they don't then they'll be darned to Heck.

I like to say that I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I can't know there is no doG but atheist because I don't believe there is a doG. Agnostic because of what I know (or don't know in this case) and atheist because of what I believe (or don't believe in this case).

@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.

@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.

I identify as atheist. I know that absolute proof that there is no god is not likely possible.I do consider the likelyhood of any god,whether he/she/it is only the first cause or a caring loving father,to be so unlikely that the odds approach zero.I respect no religion because I believe that all religions promote delusion and ignorance.

I can’t really see much difference in Agnostic and atheist. I’m very disappointed that the atheist organizations are heavily biased toward the liberals. For that reason I can never support them as they are more radical than the Christain’s.

I have been quite vehement when others try to tell me that I believe in atheism, that atheism is my belief system - It drives me crazy. maybe I should just say I have never ever had a god but its like someone calling me Jack when my name is Laura. So irritating .....

What would one call a person who does believe in a "prime source" but is determined to, come judgement day, insist that that entity be judged because of the evil it has perpetrated upon humanity. One might say this person hates "god". And do not reply that this woudl be satan worship since satan is a made up being , just as all the gods ever dreamed up.
My belief is that there is/was an entity that created everything, including cancer, malaria, dementia and every evil that can befall mankind , alzheimer's being the worst of all, and that this entity must be held accountable for it's atrocity. I know this is not atheism nor agnosticism , just wondering.

Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your post tells me you are still laboring under that.

This tells me you are viewing Agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

These terms are used to answer different questions and used in conjunction, Gnostic (knowlageable) Theist (believer), Agnostic (unknowing) Athiest(Non believer) and so forth.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

I took my Cue from Bertrand decades ago and will share that.
PROOF of GOD

“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

Excellent post.

I've often thought that we should distinguish between the "man made" god (made up in the minds of men) versus some type of superior being who may or may not have had a hand in our creation. For the first, I am clearly aetheist, for the latter - who knows? How can we ever know?

The ORIGINAL idea behind AGNOSTIC is different from our vancular idea of the word in US today.

It’s “idea”: Humans beings don’t and will never have the intelligence to to answer the question of a god. It’s titalky out of our reach. And may be “designed” that way on purpose. (Last sentence was subsequently added scores later)

In our modern thinking and philosophy: “I don’t think there evidence either way to conclude if there’s a god or not”.

You can see how much these idea disconnected.
Honestly, I prefer the original idea. As an Atheist, I believe NO GOD. And we know just enough science & philosophy to now answer.

Long enough to be understood. Thanks for taking the time to write.

Excellent. On a site where it's all about getting away from labels, why do we need to create more of them.

Thank you for a well considered and wonderfully written post! ☺
It is amazing how slippery semantics can become; how can we ever get discourse without dischord when we (as a species), are never on the same page? ?

That is why posts like yours are so lovely

"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence, I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist." H. P. Lovecraft
Read more at: [brainyquote.com]

Well written and well stated.