If you don't know, you don't know.
I used to say that agnostics are just pussies who can't commit.
I've stopped saying that because it was just too harsh a judgment, and I'm
trying to be a better person.

I believe that we're all born atheists, and all the gods and religion garbage has
to be taught.
I'll remain an atheist unless and until credible, verifiable evidence to the contrary
is presented.

Everyone else is free to believe as they please. If they wish to maintain their
delusions, so be it. It would be really nice if they could manage to keep that
bullshit to themselves, though.
I would, however, like to see the religious indoctrination of children classified
as felony child abuse.

You can actually be both atheist and agnostic...they are not mutually exclusive terms. I think we are way too hung up on labels and terms, something I have stated repeatedly.

Who gives a shit?

ALL of these are beliefs... It's a matter of either accepting what others tell you as true and blindly agreeing... You believe everything you're told...

OR

Questioning everything you are told and finding your own answers.

Either way... These are personal beliefs, not facts or dictionary definitions.

I am one of the atheists agnostics are not fond of. IMHO, agnosticism is just another variety of Pascals Wager and an unwillingness to commit. Equivocation

Sounds very soild to me. We may all have slightly differing opinions due to our different lifes experiences. I have in general found that when people are being accused of not being open minded, that the accusor is actually being very closed minded.

Of the three logical possibilities there is belief, disbelief and non-belief. Non-belief isn’t on the fence. It’s just the acknowledgement that you can’t know.
Jesus, Zeus, Indra, Odin...are ridiculous. But some ultimate prime mover, or a being beyond our ability to conceptualize, is beyond us. It’s outside our ability to know. End.

Ho hum.
It means I DON'T KNOW. Period.
I have OPINIONS, but that's not the same thing.
Speculating is fun, but that's all it is.
There are lots of reasons to 'take a stand' one way or the other, but I don't because there's that nagging voice inside of me, telling me 'I really don't know.'
And I don't.
Now, I DON'T believe in a personal, Abrahamic god. Atheist on that one.
But my idea of 'god' is more Pantheistic, or a "collective unconscious," which I acknowledge may be a bunch of hooey, so I'm agnostic.
There's also a nagging voice telling me
it may NOT be a bunch of hooey.
It's NOT that I'm undecided, but that I've not enough evidence to know, and probably never will.
Atheists say they DO know. Good for them.
I don't.

Why would it mean either? It doesn’t for me.

@paul1967

Please do a topic search before posting.

Most Agnostics that I've met are atheists who use the word Agnostic as a "nicer" identifier to avoid unpleasant confrontations. Its why when talking about nonreligious people in the United States many people say "atheists and agnostics" as if they automatically go with one another.

Yep. RiverRick is right.

I think most atheists are agnostic to some degree in that if incontrovertable proof were discovered and shown to prove the existence of god, they would look at, evaluate and consider it. If the existence of god could be scientifically proven, it might be worth reconsidering, as far as existence goes....

In my opinion if there were a god he'd have a LOT to answer for, and would nto be a being worth worshiping, or even any kind of respect.

Technically, most atheists are agnostic - meaning they don't know that a god doesn't exist. I'm sure I'm not the first to say there are two questions here. Do you BELIEVE a god, or gods, exist? No? Then you're an atheist. Do you KNOW that a god, or gods, don't exist? No? Then you're agnostic. One is a claim of belief, the other is a claim of knowledge. For ease and brevity, I refer to myself as an atheist - but if I technically define what I am, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Does being an agnostic make you a wall, or fence, sitter? No, not necessarily. Where I start to have a problem is when you can't even claim what you believe. I understand not being able to claim the knowledge - but if you can't say whether or not you believe, then you're being wishy-washy. Either you believe, or you don't. If you do, that's not a bad thing - unless you try to force others to believe as you, or use that belief to dictate what actions are allowable by all.

It's fine not to know - but not taking a stance on your belief is where the problem resides.

I'm with sticks48. Who gives a shit and why does it bloody matter?

I see being agnostic as being like an uncooked pizza -- all the ingredients are there but it's not ready yet. Agnosticism has the ingredients for atheism in place but they're not quite there yet.

This is the dumbest analogy ever but it's all I got.

I agree with your sentiments. Ultimately, you will not reach a consensus of definitions of those words here. For me it seems simple. Agnosticism deals with with you can know. Atheism deals with what you believe. Since no one can know whether god exists, EVERYONE should be agnostic. Then if and what you believe will determine theist or atheist.

Agnostic is a non-committal term. LOL! They still hang onto magic and aren't quite ready to let go.

If I am agnostic about any given subject, it is because I lack the appropriate knowledge to form a viewpoint on that subject. Like when it comes to consciousness, I have no idea how it arises or how it even functions. There are other subjects that I may have some information, but yet, not enough to form an opinion on. I would still consider myself agnostic with respect to these areas.

I don't believe agnostism has anything to with open-mindedness one way or the other. It only has to do with a lack of knowledge.

If the lack of belief you are talking about is with respect to a deity, that is atheism. Atheism only addresses the affirmative position of the argument. It does not take the negative postion and state there is no deity. They say, "I have a god and here is my evidence." If their evidence does not meet the burden of proof, and considering you have a sound epistemology, then you would still lack belief in that god, and are still atheistic with respect to that claim.

If you were to tell me something and I tell you "I don't believe you." I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that I am not convinced. Just because someone is not convinced of the affirmative, does not mean they automatically accept the negative.

Agnostic means you are not asserting one way or another. In other words, you don't feel the need to be "right" about it. You can think as you wish, because without proof, there really isn't any assertion to make.

It's a lack of info

There's no way to know god (or gods, or goddess- whatever) exists. Likewise, there's no way to know it doesn't exist. Hence, agnosticism ("no knowledge" ) is the only logical choice. It's not a refusal to decide, it's acceptance that neither side has made a case.

However, pending any rational proof of the existence of god (etc.), I don't believe in one, hence, I'm an atheist.

If evidence came to light, and withstood objective testing by unbiased outside observers (better yet, by a biased observer- someone who wants to prove it wrong), then I would be forced to become a theist and believe that whatever had been proven to exist, is God. But it wouldn't mean a damn thing to me from day to day. It hasn't up to now.

( a )gnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief.
( a )thiesm refers to belief, not knowledge.
to be agnostic about something is to not believe it is possible to know one way or the other, and is independant of whether you believe it is true or not (though thinking its impossible to know if something is true, while simultaneously believing it is true, is illogical). it is not an undecided position because this position doesn't beleive it's possible to have enough infomation to make a decision at all.

agnostic thiest: believes it is impossible to know and believes in god(s) (irrational position)
agnostic athiest: believes it is impossible to know and doesn't believe in gods
gnostic theist: believes it is possible to know if gods exist and believes that they do exist
gnostic athiest: believes it is possible to know if gods exist and doesn't believe any exist

the correct term for anyone who doesn't beleive gods exist but also doesn't beleive they don't exist is still athiest, because the only requirement is the lack of belief, not the belief in the opposing position.
thiest covers believers in gods and athiest covers everything that isn't a thiest, including things like tarot readers, spiritualists, druids, some kinds of wiccan, and jedi.

you can't really fence sit on belief, you either believe a position is true or you don't, regardless of whether you tell anyone your position.

It kind of throws around the old "grey areas ideology" in my opinion. and pandering to them as well.
Yes, life is full of uncertainties but it IS the facing up to uncertainties and conquering them that makes us stronger imo.
For years I have battled with Agorophobia, for the first 3 -4 years merely stepping outside of my 'comfort zone' ( my house) was a sheer battle of will-power over an irrational fear/dread, but eventually I decided that the only thing I really had to fear was that total irrational fear itself and now I can honestly say that my Agorophobia is surrendering to my will to be decisive, return to what can classed as a normality of Social Interaction and no longer focusing on the 'grey areas' but facing them head on instead.