In the morning when I get out of bed its typically... oops wrong site..

Thanks for contributing, not.

@SilentRage exactly

I think you can be agnostic without considering a bigger picture than the earth. I see no evidence of any god anywhere.

@SilentRage true, I get that. One can be agnostic without considering the bigger picture. I’m agnostic in part because I do look at the bigger picture. Although I do see evidence of a “creator”. The intelligent design argument I find a very good argument not for The God but for some sort of intelligent designer. Who or what that is I do knot know.

Perhaps not, but my response has disappeared.

@girlwithsmiles I've thought that before, but I find my comment on the third page.

@JustAskMe third page?! Yes, that might be it
Update: yes, I didn’t realise posts like this could have many pages. Wow, new knowledge, thank you

Responses! Sorry I didnt spend every hour of the last two days answering posts. I've responded to quite a few now, have fun.

"I disagree with labels", in this discussion they are well defined .

@SilentRage You need to me read my comment.

Perhaps all 7 billion are wrong and limited to our over grown monkey brain and very limited experience.

@SilentRage I don't know if you are selling agnostic or atheist points of view. You talk like an agnostic. Religious and atheists say they know. But an agnostic says that the truth is too grand for us to understand. At least that is my understanding of the difference.

I think at least in the USA they are clearly defined and not the same.

@SilentRage the planets? agnostic atheists? I’m a non believer who doesn’t feel the need to concern myself with god, gods or their existence/ non existence. I’ve posted about this before:
[agnostic.com]

• as have various others.

A gnostic atheist has ‘faith’ that there’s no god or gods
I’m just faithless

Talk about tired, worn cliches! Purple dragons! Pink fairies in the garden!
I'm gonna start having nightmares about chartreuse trolls under my bed!

@Storm1752 A tired cliche serves well as an analogy of god. What else IS god, but a tired cliche?

I don't play golf, I want a special title for that too!

@SilentRage Indeed - a 'negative title', only necessary because religious belief is assumed, and therefore you need a way to state that assumption doesn't apply to you.

If it was assumed everyone played golf, then a 'non-golf player' term would become valuable in that case too.

Really? Care to correct me?

[merriam-webster.com]

@SilentRage If you want to have a discussion, speak. I asked you a simple question, I'd prefer to hear what you think.

@Omnedon Anyone who is 100% sure of either is a fool or knows more than the rest of us!

@Omnedon See, now THAT'S where we disagree and/or where it comes down to a basic misunderstanding!
The questioner says Agnostics are "atheists in hiding." (!) Does this betray a lack of understanding what an agnostic IS compared to what an atheist IS?
Many Atheists say they 'do not know' and still are atheists.
Agnostics also say they 'do not know.'
Help me out here, and I'm being sincere: if both 'don't know,' what's the difference between the two? Both don't 'believe in' the existence of god, right?
So far so good.
Now, do both 'believe in' the NON-existence of god?
No.
Atheists DO 'believe in' it.
Agnostics DON'T 'believe in' that EITHER...in fact, they don't 'believe' the entire subject is discussable because it's just one of those mysteries for which there is no correct answer!

I'll speak strictly for myself, okay? This may partially clear this up for some:
As one KIND of agnostic, I prefer an alternative definition of 'god' NOTHING LIKE the one everybody likes to bash, including me.
What's MY definition?
I don't have one.
It's unknowable, see? If science ever figures it out, I reason, then I finally WILL know.
So I 'believe in' the POSSIBILITY of a 'mystery god,' without portfolio.
I'll keep searching for THAT god! Why? I get bored...some article catches my eye...somebody sees a spaceship. Or something.
Atheists, on the other hand, have closed the book. Move along...nothing to see here, folks!
It's all purple dragons in the garage!
For me, THAT's the difference.
What do you think about what I think?

@Omnedon Yes, because Agnostics DO believe in the POSSIBILITY of some kind of 'god' not at ALL like the personal-entity-type god we all enjoy bashing so much.
And that's where both the misunderstanding AND the brick wall is located.
Why? How?
Atheists have a problem with uncertainty, nuance, and a squishy, jelly-like, changeable, indeterminate idea of 'god.'
They might say,
"Well if you're not talking about a personal deity-type god, why even call it god? Call it something else (which we'll probably also deny exists because you don't even know yourself what it is exactly you are talking about.)"
To which an atheist might respond,
"Yes, well, that's the best I can do, because no evidence is apparent, or may ever be discovered (in this three-dimensional world) for the explanations so many of us seek.
"We don't even know where to look, except maybe at the physical world of matter and energy, which we've already said may provide SOME clues but certainly nothing definitive."
In other words, to circle back around, Agnostics are still questing for answers, or at least clues, knowing full well they may not exist because maybe there IS no 'god,' no matter what you mean by the word.
Atheists, on the other hand...(well, whatever I say is going to start yet another endless circle j**k!).
Let's just say Agnostics will always be " on the fence" because they think it's the only rational place to be until, if, or when, the scientists say,
"No more! We give up! Nothing left to investigate! We've gone as far be as is humanly possible!.
You and I both know that day will never come.
But yes, there ARE differences between agnostics and atheists, but they are mostly artificial semantics.
However, remember I said, 'mostly;' as in, 'most' crop circles are hoaxes, or 'most' things about the pyramids can be explained, or 'most' psychics are phonies, etc.
It's all very confusing...that's the point.

@Omnedon You're right, I painting a broad brush, intending to get beyond the "artificial semantics" (what a word formally means and what it actually means), to pinpoint the heart of the debate between 'agnostics' and 'atheists.' And I see I'm getting nowhere!
Nothing can be known about 'god,' so there can be neither belief nor disbelief, okay?
One can parse and dissect and micro-analyze words until they become meaningless. I'm trying, as I said, to get to the essence of the disagreement: what are we really arguing about? I'm trying to say what I think it is, from my point of view
To rephrase and rejoin: I did not say I or anyone else BELIEVES IN 'god!' I SAID, 'believes in' the POSSIBILITY of, as you say, a 'principle' or "force" or "collective unconscious" or some other kind of scientifically verifiable, all-encompassing "thing" which explains existence and/or consciousness.
I'm NOT saying such a thing is real, just that it is possible.
For this proposed "thing" there by IS no hard proof, no irrefutable evidence, only strong circumstantial indications, such as case histories of reincarnations, remnants of apparently highly-advanced ancient civilizations, the 'readings' of Edgar Cayce (to name one well-documented psychic), and so and so forth. There is plenty to speculate about---not "believe in,' but enough to leave open the POSSIBILITY there are as-yet undiscovered and/or poorly understood physical laws which undergrid, permeate, and connect everything in the physical universe.
That MIGHT be no I he case, OR it MIGHT be a bunch of BS, too.
Who knows?
Atheists seem to want to almost masochistically dismiss the whole business as purple dragons and floating fairy cities.
Straw dogs.
I personally enjoy reading about (real) UFO sightings and (non-hoaxed) crop circles and other similar things. What's the harm?
But atheists say, "no way!" apparently without even looking into it themselves. There seems to be a deep-seated antipathy to anything out of the ordinary, mundane, and obvious, which cannot be readily explained, except as maybe--in some case--a severe reaction to a repressive upbringing, for instance. I don't know.
And now I'll drop out of this convo, if you don't mind, because if it's like other similar 'discussions,' it will not only not end in agreement, but rather escalate into increasingly heated and sharp exchanges of artillery, for which I lack the stamina.

How did you turn this into a save the earth post?

@SilentRage Just spitballing trying to figure out what your comment was trying to say. If it was even trying to make a point. Can you fill in the blanks there? Also, since you mentioned it, do you have a problem with saving the earth?

If you'd put somewhere in there that "with my limited knowledge".. I've never seen a Zebra in person but I've seen some convincing evidence.

I'm not sure your definition of Agnostic agrees with mine. I've never proof of any god from any religion. Thats enough for me to be agnostic. But to say I'm atheist would be incorrect. I think popular opinions say Atheist believe there isnt a god and could never be. I simply say my over grown monkey mind doest have enough facts/data to be sure either way.

Everything from nothing is how I was sure my limited knowledge devout Athiest father was wrong, Something from nothing is how I was sure my devout thiest Christian mother was wrong.

@SilentRage We have to sympathise with our elders, in that religion was the predominant force from yesteryear, and it was a comforting story to believe in.

We now know today that its not "everything / something from nothing", in that the matter in the universe is constant. There is the same matter now as there was during the big bang. Rather the universe has changed and continues to be on a journey, accelerating outwards for the past 14bn years.