Thank you for this rant. Looks like you did it awhile ago, but it just popped up on me feed. I know it's just semantics and labels, but somehow it makes you feel better if someone seems to be in the same page.

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.

As you may see from my profile, I identify as philosophically agnostic (can't know for sure) but culturally atheist (not worth my time to consider gods). So there's my reconciliation of the two It's sort of like my attitude towards Bigfoot: I suppose it's possible that there's one out there, but I just don't feel compelled to spend any time looking, because I've got better things to do with my life.

I agree, getting into an argument about atheist vs agnostic is like a Baptist arguing with a Lutheran about which religion is more Christian.

All true I would say, but for prefixes being a cause of the confusion. The "confusion" lay in religious indoctrinators defining the words to suit their own purposes and disseminating them. This is why people get the question "Do you worship the Devil?" I dare say very few ever came up with such nonsense on their own.

A convert

Thomas Henry Huxley grandsons include Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World and Doors of Perception) and his brother Julian Huxley (an evolutionist, and the first director of UNESCO), and Nobel laureate physiologist Andrew Huxley.

It is appropiate the god in the Brave New World was Henry Ford.

This was too nice to be a rant IMHO, more like an overture or something of that sort.

I like simplicity, and it is really simple to look at the prefix and root words.

a- means without

-gnostic comes from the word gnosis, meaning knowledge.

-theism is the belief in a god or gods

Simply an agnostic knows of no gods (but might believe, given proof, or as pointed out might believe but not "KNOW" God) while an atheist believes there is(are) no god(s). That lines up with the definition that Webster so kindly published.

What is more important than the pedantic differences between words [I did find your analysis good though] is getting a word that is acceptable to peolple starting at either end and coming to a working agreement. Our opponents look for lack of agreement as a sign of weakness. Yes I know they have a lot of weaknesses in this area also.

I was rather hoping that the word Humanist would be the blanket term which covers these and several additional words. The use of these words has served their purposes and now it is time to move on together and with a collective descriptor.

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

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 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".

Completely agree! thank you for the rant! I have always thought that whatever the choice of words there is no god in the mix for me.

"‘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.

After readng your comments I question my own it all comes down to faith. faith is believing in something without proof

Anyone have a problem with this? Has been useful for me, especially in debates/discussions...

I am an agnostic atheist I think... I completely agree with your statement that my belief or opinion will change with evidence. I try not to be close minded.

Oh Yeah come to think of it I know many agnostics.

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.

I agree fully. In my late 20s, 1974, I was in Bible College and later a minister. I found the same thing regarding the terms. I have been an agnostic since my early 50s. I went from a right wing bible fundamentalist to a spiritual theist to an agnostic liberal over about 27 years. What a trip. And without drugs.

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".

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!

Theists are wrong for saying "God exists". Atheists are wrong for saying "God does not exist". Agnostics are wrong for saying "God may or may not exist". Theological noncognitivists are RIGHT for saying "'God' is meaningless".

"blurb". Hahaha!

Coincidentally...I have just watched this YouTuber, Rationality Rules, addressing David Mitchell's insistence that he is not an atheist - while claiming to be, the more rational, agnostic. David Mitchell is a very well known UK comedian. The YouTuber, Rationality Rules, is unknown to me until this video popped into my recommended list as I was browsing for funny David Mitchell skits. But Rationality Rules argued his case well.

Jump to about 4min and 25secs in this video:

Rationality Rules rationalises that:
"Theism and Atheism address what you believe. Gnosticism and Agnosticism address what you assert to know."

He makes an example addressing David Mitchell directly: "...If I ask you if you believe in a god, and your answer is 'no', then you're an Atheist. And if you answered 'I don't know', then you haven't answered the question. Either you believe or do not believe. That is, either you're a theist or an atheist. And how certain you are in your belief, that is: how Gnostic or Agnostic you are, is a completely different question. And so since you don't believe in a god or gods, you are an Atheist..."

From his rationale, Atheism and Agnosticism are mutually INCLUSIVE because I can be any of these:
a: a non-believer because there's no proof yet of existence of a god - an Agnostic Atheist
b: a non-believer because I know there's no proof - a Gnostic Atheist
c: a believer because there's no proof yet of non-existence of a god - an Agnostic Theist
d: a believer because I know there's proof of a god. (I hear his voice every morning.) - a Gnostic Theist

Theism/atheism is an answer to "Do you believe?" And Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an answer to "How certain are you of that belief?"

Just another bee in the bonnet.

Brilliant !!

Short version of my long answer is...It's usually agnostics who quibble about such bullshit. You know what you are. Any one trying to tell you what you are is an asshole so fuck em, I say. Now at the risk of being an asshole myself I 'm going to label you a pretty cool person. The kind I like. wink wink.