Atheism and Agnosticism: Defining the Discussion

Happy New Year, everyone! In an effort to get this blog off on the right foot, regular-posting-wise, I figured that my first post of the new year should be about defining some terms. Since I am planning on discussing my views on religion and atheism regularly, at least for the time being, I imagine that it will be helpful for all of you to understand what I mean when I use words like 'atheist' and 'agnostic.'


The first thing that is important to understand about the way that I, and many other atheists, use these terms is that we do not consider them to be mutually exclusive. "Atheism" means "without belief in a god or gods," and "agnosticism" means "without knowledge of god or gods." Given this distinction, many people who define themselves strictly as agnostics may find that they have never asked themselves where they fall on the theist/atheist divide.

The best way to understand this distinction between belief and knowledge is to recognize that there are differing degrees of atheism and agnosticism that people use to further define themselves: strong and weak. A strong atheist would most likely say, "I believe that there are no gods," while the weak atheist would say, "I do not believe that there are any gods." It may seem like a small distinction, but it is not, because it is the difference between saying that you refuse to believe that something exists and saying that it may exist but you are not willing to believe in it without some evidence. It may come as a surprise to some to find out that most atheists, even the most outspoken ones, consider themselves to be weak atheists. It may not come as a surprise to others, because most atheists value reason and an open mind and would not be willing to dismiss the possible existence of anything, even a god; they just will not act as if that god actually exists unless they have some tangible proof of its existence. I consider myself to be a weak atheist for this reason: I am not going to close my mind to the possibility of the existence of a god or gods, but I see no reason to believe or act as if they exist until I have some evidence that they do.

There are also strong and weak definitions of agnosticism, allowing us to further clarify the distinction between knowledge and belief - a distinction that I consider to be vital in a world that seems to enjoy blurring the lines at every turn. A strong agnostic says, "I do not know whether or not gods exist, but neither do you," while a weak agnostic says, "I do not know whether gods exist, but someone might." Some theists would probably see themselves as agnostics under this definition: having faith in something makes it completely possible to believe that a god exists while admitting that you don't actually have any specific knowledge or evidence to support that belief. Granted, very few people would ever concede to believing in something with absolutely no reason for their beliefs, but it is possible, on a personal level, to believe in something with no real proof of its existence. Though I did not realize it at the time, I was an agnostic theist for many years before I finally became an agnostic atheist, but that's an explanation better left for the next post.

I consider myself to be a weak atheist, but a strong agnostic. I will not discount the possible existence of an entity containing the characteristics of a deity, but I will not believe in one without evidence, and I do not think that anyone currently has any knowledge, scientific or otherwise, that could bring us any closer to discovering the existence of such an entity. But the great thing about this position is that it allows my beliefs to be malleable while giving me a position from which to critically examine the claims of knowledge that others bring me, because I will not accept claims of knowledge (since I do not think anyone has such knowledge) without strong, testable, scientific evidence.

I hope this has not completely confused everyone reading it, but if it has, I invite you to please ask questions in the comments, and I will do my best to clarify any points that may not be clear. I would also like to state that, while I have found these definitions to be a good explanation of my position, and that of many of the atheists that I read and communicate with, I do realize that not everyone recognizes these same definitions, so it always helps to ask others what they mean when they define themselves as a theist, atheist, or agnostic before engaging in a discussion.

That being said, though, if you consider yourself to be an agnostic, but not an atheist or a theist, I would ask you to think long and hard about whether or not you actually believe in the existence of a deity. It's fine to admit not knowing something, but if that lack of knowledge means that you do not believe in a deity, it is important to realize that that makes you an atheist by the standard definition of the word. It seems to me that a lot of people simply use the word "agnostic" to describe themselves because they see the word "atheist" as a pejorative. If more people recognized the distinction between knowledge and belief and chose to recognize that they are atheists if they do not believe in a deity, the true definition of the word would begin to overtake the pejorative definition, allowing us to have more open discussions between believers and non-believers, which is all that most atheists, myself included, really want.