Wow. Awesome post. Thank you and I'm with you. Same reason I won't choose a political party, a football team, or anything else that provides a nugget for someone to glom onto and correct me for. I donna wanna hear it.......I am what I am, and by definition, I define my own 'me'.

Absolutely

You are an agnostic semanticist. Lol! I am a practical atheist, but I am not sure of much of anything. So maybe I am ideologically agnostic. But not sitting on the fence most of the time.

Dogma is hard to irradicate - even among the non-religious.

Very well written! I identify as an Agnostic Atheist.

Look at all these Likes and replies!! Well, you can feel good that your super-long rant did not go unnoticed.
Great rant! Labels seem to be a double-edged sword, don't they? They are a useful shorthand for complex ideas, but that shorthand inevitably ends up with multiple definitions and thereby fails to escape confusion.
Personally, I currently prefer agnostic atheist for myself, but previously favored the label skeptical agnostic. Honestly, though, I happily answer to agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, or freethinker.

And you are so right: None of these labels is perfect. They each have connotations that can somewhat mis-represent us. ...whether it is that we hate and disrespect all religious people (atheist), or that we are wishy-washy cowards afraid to take a stand on anything...or who can't think deeply enough to even comprehend the theological argument (agnostic). None of that is right or fair, but some people have nevertheless thought it of us. Ultimately it seems we will never escape reliance on labels unless we--and the other(s) in our conversations-- are willing and able to always take the time for a thorough discussion. That is usually not how it goes. :/

A well composed,thought provoking post making a person re-examine long standing beliefs,perhaps shaking their foundations of what was steady,and strong.

Thanks Silvereyes, and well said. I appreciate your putting into words what so many of us are feeling

I consider myself an atheist. I think that the Universe we see could have been formed without having some intelligence managing its evolution. There are about 2500 versions of gods all over the world. I do not believe in any of them. For better understanding I recommend you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. He explains this much better than I can. It is a short book and may have to read it twice to get a better understanding. I studied electronics which is a branch of physics and it was all mathematics. I got to understand it because in the lab, I could see the math work in the physical world. Later on I was working with very advanced systems used in jet fighters that solidified me as an atheist. This same theory that I have seen work on many occasions does not require a god to jump start a Universe like the one we are in. If quantum mechanics work, which it does, doesn't require a creator why complicate our lives even more. Perhaps in our future there will be another science that explains it all and will be the end of these arguments

Like you, I don't care for labels. All I can definitively say is, for me, there are no gods, period. So, call me what you will, I honestly do not care.

Gods and religions are, in my opinion, derivatives of man's early efforts to explain the unexplainable; which somehow devolved into mechanisms for controlling the less powerful in society and taking advantage of those susceptible to the comfort of belief.

It is beyond my ken that one could look at the universe, and with even the slightest understanding of what we know, evidentially, about it, could firmly enjoin the notion that it was spawned from nothing but the mind of something or some "one" of whom we are not even able to conceive, if you accept the theistic viewpoint. Sounds like pure fantasy to me.

Sorry, but one good rant sometimes begets another rant.

Just came across this post. I can say that I do not believe in any organized religion, for various reasons. This does not mean that there is not a force in the Universe which can guide us to a better life. So far that is given us by the laws of Physics, we figure out all there is and can apply it towards a better life for all. Religion cannot.

The 'label' for you is the same as the one for everyone else. "YOU" it is distinctive and beautiful and all YOU need. Leave labeling to others. Any time you take a position on ANY issue, they will label you in a 'New York Minute'!

I feel your pain as an individual but also am aware of the prevalent notion that we must label ourselves in order to let others know where we fit in the constellation of 'isms' and herds swirling about us.

Don't bother. The cattle will ignore you anyway and label you based on whether you seem at the moment to be friend or foe.

Agnostics and atheists share skepticism. The rest is window dressing. Or, if there are really gods, 'adjusting deck chairs'.

I watch The Atheist Experience on a regular basis (it was the show that educated me to understand that I was, in fact, an atheist.... and that the label atheist wasn't a scary horrible thing!).

I like the way Matt Dillahunty from that program explains it, and it helped me understand this clearly:

atheism/theism is about BELIEF
agnosicism/gnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE

And he also goes on to explain that knowledge is a subset of belief - that is, knowledge is when you believe to a degree of certainty that it becomes knowledge. Hence, agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Some atheists simply withhold their belief because they haven't been presented with evidence to support the claim that there is a god... and those who are anti-theists, or gnostic theists go one step further and say they believe to the point that they know there are no gods.

This is what I found very helpful in my understanding, and it's how I describe it to others when we talk about this topic.

Mostly I use the terms interchangeably.

Some atheists are rigid, annoying and like to lambaste agnostics. Generally those atheists make assertions like, "there are no gods" and just like when theists make assertions, I demand proof. This annoys the asshole atheists and they lambaste me despite their flaws with logic.

So far, I haven't met annoying asshole atheists on this site.

My chill atheist friends acknowledge we'd believe, but not necessarily worship, all gods who deign to prove they exist.

The disparity between proclaiming and often proselytizing no gods exist versus saying you'll believe in anything after shown reliable, repeatable proof isn't subtle.

IMO we need a better term for rigid atheists than asshole atheists, but people who write dictionaries rarely consult rednecks.

Since this is somewhat a dating site, lol kinda???

Conversations like this are THE BEST way to get some peoples' attention and frequently lead to nekkid shennanigans when I chat with girlfriends.

My last two dates happened because I was talking about Sam Harris or Rich Dawkins. LOL no joke a woman at the gym saw I had a Sam Harris book, 2nd date Thursday.

Nerds are sexy.

I'm not into labels, in the sense that I don't need to strongly identify as an atheist in order to have a meaningful life. On the other hand, language is important, because communication is important. So, here is my understanding of the terms:

A/theism is about belief in gods, in particular the absence or presence of such belief. If you don't believe, you're an atheist; if you do believe, you're a theist.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. An agnostic thinks that whether or not gods exist is inherently unknowable. For example, that there are agnostic theists: people who believe in a god, but do not claim to KNOW that there is a god.

Everyone is either an atheist or a theist: you either believe, or you don't. Agnosticism is not a special third choice, as it deals with a completely different aspect of the supernatural altogether.

Good stuff I am Agnostic definitely.

I have always called myself 'godless' works for me and shuts people up too. I hate this debating over words - by all means ask me why I call myself godless but it seems a pretty transparent way to define myself. I am fast becoming allergic to people who want to engage me in meanings of words I seriously don't care as long as the message gets accross -"lifelong godlessness" And if you want a conversation with me it will be in my language, as well as listening to yours.

That one was a doozy

I think it is as dangerous to be absolutely certain that there is no god as it is to be absolutely certain that there is. Doubt is good, it keeps our minds open and encourages us to go and seek answers. If we think we know everything then we stop expanding our knowledge. Knowledge is power and truth.

I stopped reading after please play nice...

Unless you actually believe in some god, you are an atheist. If you think that you know that there are no gods, then you are a gnostic atheist. If you don't claim to know for sure, then you are an agnostic atheist. If you believe in a god but are willing to admit you may be wrong, then you are an agnostic theist. If you claim to know that there is a god, then you are a gnostic theist. Theism is about belief in a god or gods; gnosticism is about knowledge.

I am an atheist, not because I say there are no gods, but because I haven't seen a good reason (evidence) to believe in a god or gods. Atheism is simply the lack of belief.

If this is your first rant here. Good job. I agree with a lot of whst you sau.

I identify as agnostic, and I'm not really interested in whether there is or isn't a god, I simply treat people how I would want be treated.

I identify as openly secular. I consider myself both atheist and agnostic. You make a good case, and I agree with it.