"The formal intellectual position"... Did a majority of intellectuals get together and sign some kind of position statement? The default position for any assertion should be that it is false until there is some proof or other reason to believe it put forward. Gnostic means to have knowledge - in other words, some kind of proof. So a gnostic theist is someone that believes there is at least one god, and they have proof of it. And of course, agnostic means without knowledge/proof (regardless of for or against).

We don't have gnostic atheists because it's not really possible to prove a negative, especially when one of the prerequisites for the subject at hand is that it is outside the boundaries of the physical universe and completely untestable. For more on this point, look up Russell's Teapot.

What's your position on giant, undetectable, 60-foot-tall dragons that sneak up behind people and give them shoulder massages? My point here is that it's ridiculous to demand we take an agnostic position on this. There's no proof that such beasts exist, and the number of equally ridiculous things that we would also need to give equal consideration is ludicrously large.

What someone asserts is true without any proof at all can just as easily be dismissed as false with an equal amount of proof. Stating your position as "Is there any proof?" and/or "I remain unconvinced" isn't some kind of affront to others, as your concluding sentence implies. I contend that theists' demands that we accept their beliefs as fact without any proof at all is an affront to sensibility and rational thought. That they have a long history of threatening, torturing, and killing people that don't accept their beliefs as fact makes me unwilling to be charitable to their position in any way, shape, or form. Doubly so when we take into account their actions towards people that have presented actual proof that some of their assertions were contradicted by the physical world (Galileo, for example).

It’s probably best if you allow people to define themselves as they see fit and don’t worry so much about what titles are appropriate or better for critical thought. I can’t speak for everyone, but those are some of the same reasons I avoid religious people. Because I don’t want to be told how to act, what’s appropriate, and what I should or shouldn’t call myself. Just let people be.

Three different terms that mean three different things.

None of which are mutually exclusive

Well said my friend

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in gods. But while that's my belief, I don't know that my belief is fact, thus I'm agnostic because I can see where there is the possibility for the existence of some higher power even if I have yet to see the proof for this.
Likewise, I'm agnostic on many "supernatural" and "metaphysical" concepts. I've seen and experienced some weird stuff in my life. Most of it, I can at least come up with a hypothesis that explains it from a scientific perspective. Some of it, though, I just can't.
And I'm an existential nihilist so I'm not super interested in humanism.

But some Humanists can also be Christians.

I am an atheist, in the negative sense. i fail to believe in any particular god belief. I don't oppose other beliefs, that is a bit too much like a religious position.

I am an atheist, in the negative sense. i fail to believe in any particular god belief. I don't oppose other beliefs, that is a bit too much like a religious position.

The full definition of belief without any proof of existence would be to me a delusion cuz the mind creates what it wants you first must have proof it exists if we get away from the word belief and get back into the scientific evidence then we have a more solid reach on what's real and what's not I think for the most part A lot of people like to use the word belief I believe in this and I believe in that and I I think the word belief if it was excluded and we just looked at the evidence that is there and use that instead I don't know the quite definition in metaphysical whether it contains any evidence of existence like Penn and Teller said there is no such thing as magic only science it is a sleight of hand that gives the illusion of magic Andalusian is what it is

Those are all three completely separate things. Humanism is a philosophy. Agnosticism is a claim on knowledge(gnostic/agnostic). Atheism is a lack of belief. I am a humanist as well as an agnostic atheist. I do not know(agnostic) whether a god exists, but there is no reason for me to assume that one does(atheistic).

The only reason atheism is a four-letter word is because it has, historically, been used for moral deflection by theists. “If you don’t have a god, how would you keep from raping, stealing and killing?” Not even noticing their own moral dilemma by assuming that without a grand supervisor in the sky always watching them, they would somehow be compelled to do those very things.

I’m not really concerned with what non-believers call themselves. I am just glad that “nons” are on the rise.

I do not believe in God, but I rarely say that he doesn't exist 100%. I believe in the supernatural, but I believe there's an explanation that we just lack the science for currently. Just like people in the middle ages believed it was gods that gave them a good harvest, they lacked the science at the time to know it was the soil quality, and the amount of rain

Agnostic describes the depth of knowledge I possess concerning the metaphysical. Atheist describes my lack of confidence in anybody's knowledge of the metaphysical.

I cannot PROVE that there is no flourescent pink fairy living at the bottom of my garden - but, you know what? I don't believe any such fairy is there.

I cannot PROVE that there is no god - but you know what? I don't believe any such god is there.

There is no contradiction between being an agnostic and being an atheist - you can be both, and I am both.

Atheism does not come with any presumptions at all. It is simply lack of belief in the concept of god. You can 'not believe in god' and that's it - it doesn't mean anything else, or imply anything else.

I believe the fact that so many of us are averse to claiming the label atheism is largely holding us back as a block of people to be considered. Fuck it, Im without theism, so I am an atheist.

But humanism is a secular philosophy and has nothing to do with ones religious beliefs. And catagories are deterimned by others, that is how society works.

I have been dancing around this one for a while now. There was one so determined to place me into the atheist label that I just gave up on him. This one is a slightest derivative of a similar argument. Clarification, this is just an observation, not an invitation to start a debate. The thing is, I have been skipping a lot of postings lately but eventually gets old too, and not saying anything all the time kind of defeat the purpose of being here..... So, no I am not atheist (I feel no desire to prove the unexistance of whatever), no I am not agnostic, neither spiritual (whatever that means). All I have been saying is that there are people that don't care what others believe in any shape or form.

I am a Secular Humanist, but when people ask I just say Humanist. If I am called an atheist I tell them I prefer the term nontheist.

Secular Humanism is my classification when asked. I arrive at my conclusion as an A-theist by the fact there is no, and never has been, any verifiable evidence, facts or data to support a Theist claim, and it is just a claim, and until some evidence, facts and data can be produced, my conclusion is there is NO god(s).