The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

problem is, you ask every religion if they think they are "an interpretation" and they would angrily tell you NO, WE ARE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH!!

so you've got a gajillion different "interpretations" that mostly conflict and all declare themselves to be "THE TRUTH!"

And you wonder why people are so angry, all the theists have their own personal interpretation of a deity that conflicts with everyone else's interpretation which then incites conflict.

gee, wonder why atheism and agnosticism have grown so sharply in recent years. People are tired of the bullshit of imaginary sky deities that grant wishes and favor one political party over another.

if you can't prove that these claims of deities then you've got nothing and it's far better to rely on things that can be demonstrated in reality than some ancient bronze-age text(s).

Atheism is not the reverse of theism....it is the lack of theism. It's not a belief in no god, it's a lack of belief in a god. I understand that's a difficult concept for some.
Agnosticism is lack of certainty (or admission that certitude is impossible) in what you believe, Gnosticism is absolute certitude in your (unknowable)belief.
Personal 'revelation' by god is not real evidence and is far from proof, even for the one receiving the 'personal revelation'.
Why does the 'all powerful, benevolent god' hate amputees? Not once in history has anyone ever had an arm re-grow thanks to their belief in/worship of god (or any other reason). I've never heard a serious answer to that question.

I wasn't raised in a religious home so I never had that aspect in my life of seeking comfort from the idea of God. I believed that we were products of random chance, although the real love and connection I felt to people and this reality did not feel that way. Essentially, though, I had resigned myself to the fact of my future death, and that eventually no one would ever remember or care that I even existed.

I was an agnostic towards the idea of God at that point. Atheism to me was the other extreme from theism, and I believed that the rational standpoint was agnosticism. If you did not have equal skepticism towards either side, I felt you were being intellectually dishonest. You could sum it up in a simple statement, that everything, including the fact that anything exists at all, is equally unlikely. To try to get that fact to point towards or away from a God in my opinion just showed bias.

I changed my mind when I began to have supernatural experiences. This didn't make me a theist, but it did open my eyes to the idea that there was a spiritual reality. It was in pursuing that spirituality that I received revelation that an all powerful, benevolent God does exist. After this, I became a Christian and was born again, and transformed into a new person.

So, what I would say is, there is no evidence of God beyond personal revelation by God. This is by design because God requires us to seek Him by faith. He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. If you want to know whether there is a God or not, you must seek Him with all of your heart. Seek Him while it is still called today, because today is the day of salvation.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

I guess my point is that agnosticism is the default. Even the most devout people I know would admit that while they 100% believe in god, they can't know for certain.

And I'm with you on the anti-gnostic thing... I'd much rather not know (and maybe one day find out) than have some bullshit certainty.

I think you are incorrect in your assumption about "science". True scientists admit that they KNOW nothing, but have overwhelming evidence for one hypothesis or another. The claim that there "is no god" is not scientific. The claim that all evidence points towards the conclusion that there is no god is scientific. The claim that there is no need for god in order to explain the universe is also scientific.
Science does not "attack" the unknown, it investigates hypotheses and attempts to verify or prove them wrong. (investigation of the veracity of a religion is considered an attack by believers, but it isn't one) So far every hypothesis arguing for the existence of god(s) has proven false, and many hypotheses for alternative explanations that don't require god(s) have proven correct. Again, when the score is 1000000-0, you can call the game in my opinion...but to be 100% honest you have to leave open the tiny .00000000000000.......000001% possibility that the other team scores 1000001 points after you leave (but that kind of incredible claim requires credible incontrovertible proof, not just the teams claim it happened).
As pointed out above, atheism and agnosticism are answers to two different questions. If you believe in god(s) you are a theist, if you don't you are atheist. If you don't KNOW there is/are god(s) you are agnostic, if you do KNOW there is/are god(s) you are gnostic (the only one I think is outright wrong, because it's impossible to KNOW the unknowable, so all gnostics are dishonest, at least with themselves and more often with all others). It's about a distinction between beliefs and knowledge.

It reminds me of a great quote from my dad..."Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person....but you don't need to know the 'truth' in order to not lie."

Have to double post: both sides greatest fear is "i don't know". Both sides attack that different but result to the same. Science revels on "i don't know" and willing to change their minds on new evidence. Except when it comes to God. Religion solves that with "god knows all". Result is the same: problem seemingly solved. Agnosticism just accepts "i don't know" and move on to more important issues. I'll never know so why think about it at all.

Firm agnostic here too. The most sane ideology to have today. Tomorrow it might be something else but i feel agnostics are the only ones to use diplomacy between godders and no-godders. Both groups can never understand each other, agnostics understand them both.

To anyone saying that agnosticism is simply just indecisiveness, and that is both sides: it is not. We simply don't think it's an issue you need to be on one side or the other. That's what you do. We accept both views and navigate between them trying to find what is real and what is not, since both sides try to manipulate true facts all the time according to your needs. We don't do that. If something, agnosticism is the true scientific approach; trying to find out what is true without any predisposition or beliefs...

It's ONLY that both sides are now so far apart that anything that contradicts them, is totally blasphemous/unscientific. There is no such thing as true agnosticism. There are people who are closer to believing in god and further away and no one cares how you think. People who belong to either of the marginal camps seems like idiots to me who are never going to be coaxed in either way; the more evidence you put on the table for one argument, you will oppose it even more. Its a futile discussion. We got much bigger problems to solve than if there's a god.

At the moment, there are more evidence pointing that there is no god. Nothing has been proven as a fact in either way. There would be same amount of violence with or without religion, the reasons would change superficially but nothing would change or will change if you abolish or religion. It takes about 10 years that new batch of believers arrive even if you eradicated all religion and all history: if you wipe people minds now, tomorrow someone believes in angels or goblins.. Or dragons.. It's inbuilt survival mechanism: you don't get it all, there must be a bigger plan etc.. it's human nature, not a part of our society. The feeling the presence of God is scientifically proven to be just a short circuit in our brain.. That alone makes it certain that belief in supernatural will go on.

Agnosticism is ridiculous bullshit.

Atheist: "I don't believe in (any) god."
Theist: "I believe in (a) god."

Agnostic: "I... don't know if I believe? I'll make up my mind when the evidence is in... on whether I believe.. or not."

Seriously, we all know there's no evidence against God's existence and no evidence for God's existence. It's not 'likely' that God exists or doesn't because God is by definition outside the rational bounds of likelihood, so the word 'likely' is absurdly irrelevant. You can't make a case for or against God, if you're being honest. You can just believe, or not believe, or be a dumbfuck bumbling agnostic.

I respect smart atheists and smart theists. I get annoyed by dumb atheists and dumb atheists and all agnostics.

But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.

You.. didn't really read much of what anybody said, did you?

The basic argument isn't against the people, but at this point has basically boiled down to what the definitions of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" are. Nobody is pissed off @Mordhaus / @VoodooV for what they believe in,

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.

There's atheism, anti-theism, agnosticism, theism, gnosticism.

Then there's assholeism...that's where Stanhope lives.

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.