Your aversion to the word "atheist" is interesting. You "lean toward...theism" not because you believe but because you "hope" it's true.

There is no leaning....you believe a god exists or you don't. If you "don't know" then you "don't believe". You can hope all you want but if you don't believe that makes you an "agnostic atheist".

All that means is right now there is nothing that convinces you a god exists. You can be open to the idea, you can hope that there is some greater design...but until that day when you are convinced there is a god you are both agnostic and atheist.

I don't think you like being called that because you associate some negative things with other people who are also atheist. But being atheist does not define what you believe. It only means you agree with them on a single issue "do you currently believe that a god exists" and that's all.

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown. Wikipedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10] Wikipedia

It is only since the rise of New Atheism that we have the opinion that Agnosticism is not a separate belief from Theism/Atheism. As far as Agnostic Atheism/Theism, those are still considered a sub-division of Agnosticism, not Atheism or Theism respectively.

As far as myself, I would say I lean toward Agnostic Theism, simply because I hope that there is a greater design to the Universe other than random chance.

@Mordhaus

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

Theism/Atheism addresses belief
Gnostic/Agnostic addresses knowledge

If someone asks if you are an atheist and you answer "no, I am agnostic" you are not answering the question because it was not about knowledge of god's existence it was about belief in god's existence.

The god exists.

If you believe that statement is true you are a theist.
If you do not believe (disbelieve) that statement is true you are an atheist.


Just because you "don't know" or think it's possible "there could be something like a supreme being" does not change the fact that right now you are not convinced that a god exists.

Gnosticism:
(in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim.


So if you claim to be agnostic the question if you believe in the existence of god is still unanswered.

Are you...

An agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists

or

An agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true


*BTW I borrowed heavily from this page http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

Atheism is a spectrum, though. At one end you have people who outright deny the existence of gods and, at the other, perhaps you have people who are completely unaware of the god concept and have never given it a thought. These people are still 'without gods'.

Agnosticism, however, is not much of a spectrum. The agnostic believes that the truth about existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. It is not a position of uncertainty; it is a definitive claim about the limits of human knowledge/understanding.

They are not mutually exclusive as they are addressing different questions. You can simultaneously be an atheist or theist as well as a gnostic or agnostic. Fun fact: Most existing Christian churches are officially agnostic; gnosticism is considered blasphemous. Most Gnostic Churches were declared heretical and destroyed centuries ago.

I'm not confusing anything. Atheism is, by definition, the opposite of Theism. If you profess that you have some belief that there may be 'something', but you want scientific proof, then you have placed yourself in the definition of Agnostic. You can identify yourself as Atheist, which is what many do since Dawkins released 'The God Delusion', because he chose to try and force/shame/delude Agnostics into just calling themselves Atheists.

As far as a strawman, would you say that Dawkins is an Atheist? If you say yes, then perhaps you would like to know that on page 70 of the aforementioned book [Dawkins] views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice". I imply nothing, while you personally may not feel this way, a well recognized New Atheist felt strongly enough to put it into print in his own book.

In any case, I understand your opinion. My opinion simply differs, I feel that you are a Theist if you believe deeply that there is 'something' of a god out there, an Agnostic if you are unsure and would like proof, or an Atheist if you feel that there is no such thing. You can certainly lump me with Atheism based on my commented beliefs, but I will lump you with Agnosticism based on yours.

I'm sorry, I used to think that way too, but it's just not so.

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. You're stuck in a "if you're not with me, you must be against me" binary mentality. The lack of (or being without by your definition) something is not equivalent to being opposed to something. Bald is not a hair color

As for your argument about "New Atheists," you're just creating a strawman. Never claimed anything about agnostics, especially nothing as derogatory as you seem to be implying.

It can be argued that everyone is agnostic since no one knows with certainty of the existence of a creator. People claim to have faith, but by definition, that's believing without proof so that doesn't hold up as "knowing" People also claim to "know" but their evidence never holds up beyond human conceit.

That's why I mentioned Grimm in my last post, we were talking about this subject on another sift, the mis-communication of what Atheism is. There's that tired theist claim that Atheists hate god. well you can't hate something if you don't have evidence that it exists.

An atheist is not in opposition to a creator, it's just that there is no proof and every claim out there so far can pretty much be summed up as human conceit. An atheist would probably be excited to find proof as it would expand on our understanding and thus, improve science even more.

If anyone is confused about the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, it is certainly not me or the widely accepted delineation between the two. By your statements, you are by far more of an agnostic than an atheist. The literal meaning of Atheism is without gods, you do not believe in them. If, however, you believe there 'could' be something like a supreme being but are skeptical due to lack of hard evidence, you are an Agnostic.

Proponents of the New Atheism outlook, such as yourself and Richard Dawkins, tend to look at Agnostics as fence-sitting cowards that are unwilling to join the movement to openly criticize Theists at every turn. In reality, we are simply a middle of the road group who want to remain open and, mostly, congenial to both sides of a bitter debate. If you choose to think that Agnostics are in fact Atheists, that is certainly your prerogative, but most regular Atheists and Agnostics will disagree with you.

The Wise One: Maybe some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows, maybe just believing in God...makes God exist.

Sea Otters: Kill the Wise One! KILL THE WISE ONE!

Hopefully we can get back on topic after another ching-jacking

@Grimm, Mordhaus is a textbook example of the misunderstanding of atheism I was talking about earlier.

Atheism is the calling of bullshit on theist claims. Atheism is not "there are no gods" I'm sure there are some atheists who do believe that, but that's not atheism, that's anti-theism.

If you can prove a creator exists, an atheist will believe it. IF you can prove it, then it's no longer a myth, it's a fact and that creator becomes part of the realm of science. You really gotta remember that a creator is separate from religion. There could be a creator, but a religion can still be wrong or immoral.

There is actual nuance to this stuff. But people, in general, don't give a shit for nuance. Binary thinking at it's worst. That was the mistake @brycewi19 made earlier. Stanhope not wishing someone well is *not* the same thing as him wishing them ill

If you think religion is putting out a bunch of false claims that haven't been proven, then you're an atheist. If you're agnostic, then you're an atheist. Even if you think there could be a creator, just that you don't think any of the religions are right..that's still atheism. You're not saying no gods exist, you're just calling bullshit on their claims because they haven't proved them.

It's not left vs right, it's not the fallacious "both sides suck" idea the ching-jacker was trying to sell earlier.

Back when i thought Atheism was "there are positively no gods" I didn't didn't agree with that either.

As someone who is pretty much agnostic, I can't help but chuckle at people who follow a religion and the anti-religion folks sniping at one another over beliefs.

I will throw this out there, however, Atheists can be just as preachy as Theists, given a soapbox and an ear or two to bend. Both need to get over themselves, because realistically we still know just the smallest fraction of the way the universe and everything in it works.

@Grimm agnostic=not knowing (literal translation)
gnostic-to know OR knowing.
theist-belief in gods or god
atheist-lack of belief in gods or god.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine-eleven. /cheer

EDIT: Sorry, I also recall all of the internet troll-stool pigeons denying these lies and it's just fucking sickening. Either that or they bought the lies as well. I know I've bought into a lot of lies. And in response I've had to filter down my belief system to an agnostic view of life in general. It's the only sanity I can imagine.

What's more frustrating is knowing that in all reality, there are TONS of closet atheists/agnostics out there, maybe enough to even make a majority,

But there's just so much family and peer pressure to not rock the boat that progress is slow.

So as usual, it will be another uphill battle for acceptance. Battle after battle may be lost, but the war will eventually be won.

I think the fundamental difference is how politicians in the USpander to religion, even the ones who aren't actively religious. I mean c'mon, we have presidents swearing on the bible and ending speeches with god bless even though it's never required in the constitution and we have a freaking establishment clause right there in the bill of rights.

It certainly wasn't what the founders intended, they were very wary of religion. But hey, thanks to paranoid Joe McCarthy, it's on our money, it replaced our motto, it's everywhere.

we have a ton of politicians who are proud of the idea that they think evolution and climate change are hoaxes

It's starting to change. People who are claiming no religion or atheist/agnostic in America is on the rise, but again We've still got a ways to go before we can make a real push to separate god from gov't.

"even cats and babies could be atheists"

The alternative is call them theists. You're either one or the other – it's a binary position. Since babies and cats are not theists, then logically they're atheists. WLC just calls this ridiculous, but doesn't say why.

Shinyblurry: "If you are unwilling to say God does not exist, you are an agnostic and not an atheist"

A/gnosticism deals with knowledge, A/theism deals with belief. They are two separate subjects. I can say I don't believe in aliens visiting earth without claiming any knowledge on the subject. I could be wrong, but as it happens I don't believe. You can say "I don't believe aliens visit earth, but I could be wrong". You CAN'T say "Aliens don't visit earth, but I could be wrong".
The first sentence is coherent, the second is self-contradictory. Thus it's pretty obvious that belief statements and knowledge statements are not the same.

I started to argue with you, it was a good one too. All about relevance and irrelevance and civil disobedience. But then I realized that my point was, nobody cares. And then I realized that I don't care.

I realized that having political opinions bears little difference to having religious ones. There's so much faith, too many assumptions, too much arrogance, side picking, divisiveness, manipulation and social control involved in both. So I'm agnostic. Both politically as well religiously. The issues are too big, too convoluted, and too interconnected for me to actually know or understand whats going on... and it sounds like arrogance to me now when someone talks politics. Particularly when it comes down to the silliness of assigning traits and personalities and connotations to words like republican or democrat. It's an arrogant, binary way to look at something. And it reeks of brain washing.

So my point again, fuck it. Imma read some books and go to bed.