Why? Simple:
A: I continue to see comments expressing the sentiment that one or the other term is invalid, or weak, or wishywashy, or a hedge, or a clear sign of the label user's inferior intellectual prowess, etc., etc. ...in other words, either vague or direct insults. There is obviously still room and cause for advocating a moticum of respect, awareness, and understanding that there is more than one choice for "correct" terminology usage.
B: Clearly there appear to be those who missed the previous discussions, or flogging, as you put it, and choose to participate. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

@MikeInBatonRouge As William Shakespeare once penned. " A rose by any other name would still smell the same." that's how 'labels' work.
Some people prefer to call a spade a spade, some will call it a shovel but whatever name you used it is what it is and nothing can change it.

@Triphid By "whatever name you use, it is what it is," you just made a good argument for broader acceptance of use of both agnostic/atheist terms. These terms most certainly can and do change meaning according to people's changing usage of them. The people and ideas are what they are, even though the labels express differing connotations.

Afraid I don't follow your logic. How is it illogical for atheists to state their lack of belief in God based on the lack of factual evidence? Atheism is a statement of disbelief, not of knowledge.

@MikeInBatonRouge atheist change defination like some people change underware. It's just not logical to dispute something that is a fact. People have eaten tacos, its s fact. Atheism by defination is illogical. Taco God exist. Personal Incredulity fallacy.

@MikeInBatonRouge

@MikeInBatonRouge ... do non-golfer sit around and talk abou/ NOT golfing?

@blahblah I very much respect Neil. I don't gather from this clip what you seem to be implying. I have said elsewhere on this site that I prefer to avoid putting a label on myself when attempting to have a substantive discussion with someone, for the very reason Neil references: Baggage people attach to labels.

But he goes on to state he will call himself agnostic if pressed. Sooner or later we will be asked for labels, because labels help people categorize, and categorizing is at the heart of how humans try to understand the world around us. Labels are imprecise, but their use is as inescapable as is the use of language generally. Therefore we might as well discuss our differences of how we understand and use these labels so that we can better understand each other. It is simply bogus to say labels don't matter, because, flawed as they are, they have significant impact and therefore matter.

Yep. ...see "agnostic theist" vs "agnostic atheist" referenced in earlier responses.

But Pascal said you should believe in God, because He just might exist. Do you approach from the other direction, as I do, and wager that God probably doesn't exist?

@Paul4747

Not exactly, I see Agnosicism as saying I don't want to fully commit to not believing at all (atheism) just in case.

@t1nick Technically speaking, if you don't claim to know whether or not god exist, you're agnostic, and if you don't believe god exists, you're an atheist; thus, agnostic-atheist. By definition, if you don't actively believe, that is an atheist position, even though you can admit the possibility.

Of course, the atheist side of it can range anywhere from "probably not" to "definitely not" or any point along that spectrum; my own thought falls short of "definitely not", but I see no evidence for believing.

HOWEVER, I'm not here to tell you how to describe yourself; all I am saying is, that's how the technical definitions apply.

@Paul4747

I am unabashedly atheist.

@t1nick Misunderstood what you were saying.

Let me rephrase that as:

"Technically speaking, a person who doesn't claim to know whether or not god exists is agnostic, and if they don't believe god exists, they're an atheist; thus, agnostic-atheist."

There's nothing to be abashed about in either position. I generally say "atheist" as shorthand for "agnostic-atheist", to save time and long explanations. But knowing there is no god is beyond me, like knowing that alien UFOs have or have not visited Earth.

@Paul4747

I understand what you are saying. I do not mean to be argumentative, but prefer not to have any association with agnosticism. I am equivocably an atheist and have no hesitations in not believing. Agnosticism to me is a hedge and want no part of it. Sorry

That is one way of seeing it....but a hedge against what? I don't see how the label provides any "salvation" from any particular angry god, because we still aren't acknowledging deference to said god. You seem to imply that the use of the term agnostic is a weak attempt to avoid punishment by a vague, unknown diety. That is assuming quite a lot, imo. Agnostic, in my case agnostic atheist, is simply an honest acknowledgment for the limits of human knowledge.

@MikeInBatonRouge

Your interpretation is correct. I believe that Agnostic-Atheism is a weak cup of tea. More water than tea. A form of fence sitting.