An agnostic is essentially a "weak" atheist by definition. I consider myself an atheist/agnostic in that I, 1) have no belief in any god(s) and, 2) I see no evidence either way.

Important topic. Thanks for putting the time into that. If you believe that the abrahamic god is real, clearly you cannot be either agnostic or atheist. If you beleive that the abrahamic god is definitely a fiction, you can't be agnostic. If you are open to the idea that some as yet undiscovered divine creator being might exist, you cannot be an atheist. That is why I think I might prefer the term antitheist for myself. See the definition of antitheism and see if it fits your situation. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I don't really see the difference myself , at any one time in my life - ,simply put, I don't have a god. It doesn't worry me that people use different words and give them different meanings - the bottom line is "in this moment I have no god for me it is the 'A" at the beginning of the tqo words that is the important this A in latin is -'without' so 'a'-theist ' is 'without' a god and 'a'gnostic is - without knowing; but at this moment without a god.So we are both in the same place without a god until someone gets gnosis = knowingness.

The difference for me has always been a belief/knowledge issue. In a technical sense everyone is agnostic, there is no way to fully know anything. Atheists In my opinion do not put forward a a disbelief or a belief that God is not real, just no positive belief that God is real. Your dictionary definition gets confusing because it describes atheists in 2 different ways. At first it's described as a lack of belief or strong disbelief, the later describes atheism as a belief that there is no God. The strong disbelief corresponds with the second definition, but what I think is more valid would be the "lack of belief" statement. I think atheists are "a theists" or without theology. Doesn't mean they believe a theology is wrong, does mean they haven't been convinced it's correct. Like in court, the options are not guilty or innocent, they are guilty or not guilty. That means either, HE DID IT, or THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE HE DID IT, and the whole time without asserting that he didn't do it.

I prefer to call myself a Freethinker. Good post!

It only gets confusing when I explain my God is science. ;o)

I find my self often having to define both terms. I gets quite tiresome. The only time I bother with this is when theist make statements like "atheist belive in God the just deny it" or "You can't be agnostic and atheist". Then I have to "school them". With knowlege comes understanding, with understanding comes tolerence.

i'm of the thinking that gods, the afterlife and other supernatural phenomena cannot be known by the human mind. call me whatever blows your skirt up.

The answer to your semantic question hangs totally on your definition of God. (Capital "g" intentional.) Are you referring to a being or a force? Is this being or force interactive (with its creation if you include creator in your definition)? You need to dig down one more layer of verbiage before even considering whether you are agnostic or atheist. My personal answer is: myths are literary and oral stories repeated to perpetuate cultural memes. They are not meant to be taken literally.

Really great dissertation. Little room left for comment. Labels don't help much. I think of the label,on a glass jar. It serves to inform, but also hides the contents from view and makes it difficult to determine how much is left in the jar. Thanks for giving us so much to chew on

I identify w/ both terms. Am a human first; labels are useful only insomuch as they aid understanding.

Well I always viewed us as on the same side, and want the same thing. I don't care about the label all that matters to me is that where on the same side.

I would bring pot cookies and brownies.

If I brought a Christian friend, would he have to bite his tongue?.

Thanks for sharing your pivotal moment. I respect you as a peer and appreciate your friendly spirit. I try to approach every conversation on this site hoping that in the end I kensmile4u and you cansmile4me.

Alrighty..... that's good for me! Great post!

But how do I know which bathroom to use?

No, they are fundamentally different. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods and other types of magic with the smallest of probabilities of Santa-is-real level of insignificance that we are wrong. That is just in case we are hugely mistaken about our state of knowledge about the Universe. Agnosticism, with it's belief that existence of gods and other forms of magic is unknowable, is magical thinking in itself.

The real debate about how a person is lies with how they hang toilet paper. XP

Just kidding, people seriously need to chill. I’ve known so many “flex atheists” who are “agnostic” in public because of the connotation of atheist.

Even on the scale you can have gnostic and agnostic religious and unreligious people... I’m faiiiirly sure the site even defines the words to stave off this in-fighting.

Personally, fully agree the Ibrahamic god is fake as shit, some cultures deify natural things. Shintoism worships some trees that they believe house spirits. Do I -not- believe in trees? No, they’re there. Do I deify them? No, no I do not. My ‘doubt’ is in the interpretation. Though, at the same time that concept that you can deify yourself with enough people buying into your ego is pretty damn niche cool.

^_~ Live and let live, do no harm and take no shit!

xoxo

Honestly I think we're just splitting hairs here the point is that we try to live our lives empirically and reasonably and logically and we do not subscribe to religious psychosis

Excellent post.

I specifically describe myself as Atheist because I firmly understand that everything that exist today is factual, explainable and does not require a god hence no god exists. I tend to interpret that Agnostics are reserving judgment specifically when pushed at trying to answer the famous theist question: What existed before the Big Bang or what started it? Agnostic are closer to Deism than Atheist on that level.

The main difference I observed between both is Atheist tend to be scientific and Agnostics, spiritual.

a clear way to demonstrate the difference is when facing the following:
Based on facts every human is mortal.
Atheist: One does not need to observe every death of every human to have ever lived to understand they them selves and everyone around them will die.
Agnostic: It is very clear that humans die but maybe in the way way past maybe a human vampire population existed and are still amongst us today but I'm not sure but still a possibility.

We've been down this road before, and often, so I'm not going to say much. But do notice how often people say God, singular, especially the agnostic position that there is no way to know if there's a god or not. Always or very often the singular. Agnostics are indeed welcome to hold the agnostic position. I merely humbly ask that they say that they are equally agnostic about all gods, ancient and modern, and always use the plural, and really mean that they are as agnostic about the God Apollo, for example, as they are about the Christian God. Like Bertrand Russell, I don't think they are, in practise. I certainly could never say that and truly mean it. Now, as an atheist, I'm happy to shout from the rooftops that I am equally atheist about all gods, every one of them. Indeed, I say so regularly.

I like the Dawkins approach of an agnostic scale of 1-7 (on which he variaby professes to be a 6 or 6.9). I like this because it incorporates the unfalsifiability of theism, and encourages the necessary humility I consider to be inherent to the viewpoints.

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 completely agree. Aren't we all united in our doubt?