As others have pointed out, gnostic relates to a claim of knowledge while theism relates to having belief. They are two separate points that can be mixed and matched either way.

A gnostic theist claims knowledge of and belief in a god. An agnostic theist believes, but claims no knowledge of. A gnostic atheist doesn't believe, and claims to know about god's existence. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe, but claims no knowledge to the existence of a god.

I know it's just me ... For me agnosticism is atheism with an airbag

Some atheist rely on the first part of that definition of atheism, just a lack of belief. I think this is an accurate use of the word. Words have multiple meanings. So, I appreciate you being flexible with labels.

Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Definition of agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Ahhh I think I need to smoke more pot to digest all of that...Butttt why all the labels? Im so sick of labels these days everyone has to BE something, Conservative, Liberal, Atheist, Agnostic, christian, Evangelical...Republican, Democrat, Nazi, fascist, fundamentalist, communist, butcher, baker, banker or candlestick maker.

Lets just get rid of all the labels and just BE NICE to one another...

Heres your soap box back, and now Ill take that Joint hah!

Agnostic was a term coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, who was Darwin’s Pittbull. When Darwin released the origin of the species, he didn’t want to debate his critics, so he got this guy named Huxley who was a lawyer that loved to debate and fight to do it for him. Huxley used the term Agnostic in order to force his debate opponents to argue the issue itself rather than try to smear him with labels like Atheist, which was quite looked down on back then.

Now as far as Agnostic is concerned, the term “Nostic” means knowledge, it’s how man comes to know things. So the term Agnostic is used by non-believers to allegedly sit on a fence and not commit themselves to being a full blown Atheist, which was the whole reason Huxley used it, to prevent the distraction during his debates with Darwin’s critics.

But here’s my issue, if someone who is Agnostic doesn’t know whether or not there is a god, then by default this person doesn’t believe. They’re not going to attend Sunday mass as a precaution nor are they going to pray every night before going to bed because they’re on the fence… they don’t know if god exists or not. If they’re not going to commit to Atheism while on that fence, they are also not going to commit to the church as well. While I get that they’re trying to act like Switzerland, this is not what they’re doing.

An Agnostic doesn’t believe in god. It doesn’t mean they are rejecting god, it just means there is not enough evidence at this moment to indicate there either is or isn’t a god. Yet to the religious if you are asked “Do you believe in God” and the answer you give is anything accept yes, they consider you a non-believer. That means an Agnostic person is lumped into the same boat as all Atheists because they also at this point do not believe in god.

So why do some non-believers call themselves Agnostic? Probably for the same reason Huxley did so many years ago, to avoid the sigma and hate that goes along with the term Atheist. It’s not as bad today as it was back then, but I can dig why some non-believers like to use that shield and will not judge them for it. Use whatever label makes you feel the most comfortable.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many different religions? Well they start out as unified "all encompassing" , Unitarian etc etc. Then some young buck disagrees with the definition of a word and first a faction join them then it becomes sect , then a completely different church and/or website.
Is this the process happening above? I will start a new topic if this particular post does not draw many responses.

Surely we should be coming together to defeat religion and not splitting hairs . Blanket words Rule!

I agree fuck the labels . . . Why do we do that? I to find the "educating "process arrogant and bogus. I did like the definitions and found them good and without pretension. I must admit I have felt close to ancestors and felt less alone in a cris because I could feel their energy. Even the ones I didn't listen too when they were alive. Dogma is an evolution whose time has come to be put aside. For me that is

It’s more of a question of gnostic atheism vs agnostic atheism. Gnostic simply means someone is absolutely 100% sure about something, agnostic means someone is not entirely sure. There are gnostic atheists just as there are gnostic theists, to that there are agnostic atheists just as there are agnostic theists. All just different sides of a four sided dice.

Unbelievable!

I like to say that I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I can't know there is no doG but atheist because I don't believe there is a doG. Agnostic because of what I know (or don't know in this case) and atheist because of what I believe (or don't believe in this case).

@TheMiddleWay ”Precise thoughts come from precise language”. I do not agree with this. Words stay mostly constant and persist long past their usefulness e.g gay . It is the meaning which changes (and this is the same for definitions which are often personal ) and we cannot stop people changes meaning for their own sometimes twisted purposes. Gay changed its meaning to cheer up homosexuals to be more in line with their behaviour.
Words often encompass two or more categories. Most Humanists are also Atheists -I am not.
Surely what we are searching for is blanket word that covers many concepts AND puts the most important things up front. Christ does for describing Christians and Human is the most important statement that only humans figure in our explanations.

BTW Most gays are not unusually cheerful in my experience -they are just ordinary people.

I identify as atheist. I know that absolute proof that there is no god is not likely possible.I do consider the likelyhood of any god,whether he/she/it is only the first cause or a caring loving father,to be so unlikely that the odds approach zero.I respect no religion because I believe that all religions promote delusion and ignorance.

I have been quite vehement when others try to tell me that I believe in atheism, that atheism is my belief system - It drives me crazy. maybe I should just say I have never ever had a god but its like someone calling me Jack when my name is Laura. So irritating .....

Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your post tells me you are still laboring under that.

This tells me you are viewing Agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

These terms are used to answer different questions and used in conjunction, Gnostic (knowlageable) Theist (believer), Agnostic (unknowing) Athiest(Non believer) and so forth.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

I took my Cue from Bertrand decades ago and will share that.
PROOF of GOD

“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

I've often thought that we should distinguish between the "man made" god (made up in the minds of men) versus some type of superior being who may or may not have had a hand in our creation. For the first, I am clearly aetheist, for the latter - who knows? How can we ever know?

Long enough to be understood. Thanks for taking the time to write.

Excellent. On a site where it's all about getting away from labels, why do we need to create more of them.

Well written and well stated.

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 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.

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.

Love you - thank you!

To me, these distinctions matter, if at all, philosophically only. For all practical purposes, I am an atheist and I think there is enough rational argument to come to the conclusions that there is no god or creator. This hair-splitting only comes up with religion for some reason. No-one ever discusses whether they are aunicorny or just agnostic about the question if there is pink unicorn revolving around the black hole in the center of our galaxy. We cannot really rule that out so strictly speaking we would have to be agnostic about it. But hell no, I am totally aunicorny in the same way as I am totally atheist. Because the alternatives are just too silly: they explain nothing, they predict nothing, they do not fit into any scientific theory, and they beg to get cut off by Occam's razor.
So, let us cut them off and not waste any more time on them.