Atheist or Agnostic: A Confusion of Terms?

I often hear things along the line of “I’m an agnostic, not an atheist,” usually followed by one or more insinuations of atheists, such as:

  • “I think being an atheist requires just as much faith as being a theist [so I’m an agnostic instead].”
  • “Atheists are just as closed-minded as theists [so I’m an agnostic instead].”
  • “Neither side can disprove the other, so it’s hypocritical for atheists to criticize theism [so I’m an agnostic instead].”

This misconception of agnosticism presumes that atheism and theism are diametrically opposed extremes, and that agnosticism is a sort of middle ground between them. Perhaps most believe the picture looks like this:


There are at least a couple of things wrong with this. First, neither theism nor atheism explicitly entail extreme, absolutely certain belief in anything. (Most theists I have talked to about this do not proclaim 100% certainty, and I do not know a single atheist who is absolutely certain that no gods exist. Though, the stats suggest that theism within the general population is more often than not accompanied with absolute certainty.)

Second, gnosticism deals with a separate issue from theism. Theism is concerned with belief, whereas gnosticism is concerned with knowledge. This is why I identify formally as agnostic atheist: I don’t believe there is a god (atheist), nor do I claim to know whether one exists (agnostic). To repeat myself, atheism does not necessarily entail 100% certainty that no gods exist, neither does theism necessarily entail 100% certainty that one or more gods do exist. This famous chart categorizes the distinction between belief and knowledge:


Agnosticism is not a third way between atheism and theism; it is a separate dimension altogether. This is usually as far as explanations of atheism vs agnosticism go. However, I would like to take this one step further.

More In-Depth

The chart above is misleading. It merely states what the areas are, not how the populace actually fits into them. Nor does it address the philosophical difference between the concepts of strong atheism and weak atheism (though it mentions strong atheism at the bottom). I will try to address these points here.

Here is the same chart but with areas adjusted for  the actual proportions of people within atheism and theism (crude estimation):


In addition, I have drawn an arrow to simulate folding this chart into a line:


Again, it seems that most atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic, whereas most theists are gnostic rather than agnostic. That is, most atheists do not claim to know their belief, whereas a majority of theists are 100% certain that their god(s) exist:


Combining the two diagrams together allows for a comparison of misconception vs reality, where the sizes of the arrows attempt to match the correct proportions of people:


For this reason, I find the claim very unreasonable that atheism is “just as extreme” as theism. It is simply not true, since most atheists fall under agnostic atheism, whereas most theists fall under gnostic theism. Only a gnostic atheist could be possibly as “extreme” as a gnostic theist (gnosticism being a necessary condition), but I would still argue the gnostic theist position is more extreme.

Namely, the categorization above applies to a general concept of god, not any god in particular. It is very possible to be a gnostic atheist regarding a particular god, such as how most Christians are gnostic atheists with regards to Zeus or Thor. “I just know Zeus belongs in mythology.” I think Christians would agree that being a gnostic atheist with respect to Zeus is not as extreme a position as being a gnostic theist with respect to Zeus.

So this is where the misconceptions and the qualms of atheism vs agnosticism come from. The words “atheist” and “agnostic” as used in the wrong definitions actually point to roughly the same group of people—agnostic atheists. The primary misconception is additionally preserved by several factors, including:

  • People expect one-word answers for religious identity, thus it would be generally unwieldy for someone to answer “agnostic atheist,” and would instead answer either “atheist” or “agnostic.”
  • On surveys, “atheist” and “agnostic” are usually mutually exclusive. Thus, you are forced to pick one.
  • The word “atheist” has such a negative social stigma (mainly the result of religious propaganda) that many people would not want to deal with the repercussions of saying it, and would rather answer “agnostic.”
  • Since many people would rather answer agnostic, this leads to a harmful feedback loop: if an atheist says “I’m an agnostic because atheism is just as closed-minded,” this perpetuates the negative stigma of “atheist,” which in turn causes more people to avoid using the term “atheist.”
  • To some degree, the word “atheism” is also confused with the term “strong atheism,” and similarly, “agnosticism” is confused with the term “weak atheism.” Which brings me to…

Strong Atheism vs Weak Atheism

There is another misconception that atheism automatically entails the concept of strong atheism, which asserts that no gods exist. This is in contrast to weak atheism, which rejects the existence of gods without necessarily the positive assertion that no gods exist. The majority of atheists are weak atheists; in fact, I don’t know any strong atheists.

For another example, say you lived 4000 years ago and someone asserted that the Earth was a triangle. Without having to assert that Earth is not a triangle [strong], you can be doubtful that Earth is a triangle [weak]. To doubt the triangle Earth theory, you do not necessarily need some alternate explanation. This is why the claim, “Because they don’t believe in a god, atheists must believe that something came out of nothing and that everything is materialistic” is invalid—atheism doesn’t not entail any belief; it is nonbelief. In addition, note that gnostic atheism is even stronger than strong atheism, as it entails not only an assertion but also knowledge involved in making the assertion.

However, the atheism diagram is often mislabeled with strong atheism as atheism and weak atheism as agnosticism:


In this terminology, I would identify as weak atheist with regards to belief (I don’t believe there is any god, but I don’t make the positive claim that there do not exist any), and weak agnostic with regards to knowledge (I don’t think it’s possible to know right now, but it may be possible in the future—it is provable but not falsifiable). And again, there is a distinction between the concept of a general god and the particular god of Christianity.

From my experience in talking to people, much of the time when they say “I’m an agnostic, not an atheist,” what they really mean really comes down to “I’m a weak atheist, not a strong atheist,” or “I’m an agnostic atheist, not a gnostic atheist.” Sure, this is a semantic difference, but it has a lot of real world implications due to equivocations of atheism with strong atheism and of atheism with gnostic atheism. It certainly confounds people who are thinking about these things and it enables completely wrong arguments to be made against atheists.

Of course, there’s still a lot more to cover. For example, I haven’t even addressed the atheist vs deist vs theist distinction yet, which is concerned with whether a god currently interacts with the world or not. A deist might believe an all-powerful being created the universe 13.8 billion years ago but hasn’t touched the universe since then, whereas a theist believes that a god still interacts with the world today. But this wasn’t too relevant in the atheist/agnostic distinction this post is concerned with. I hope this clears at least some of the confusion surrounding these terms.

In addition to “atheist” and “agnostic,” there are many more terms that can make the conversation even more confusing: humanist, secularist, freethinker, nonreligious, rationalist, etc., each with different connotations. This may be in a future post.

13 thoughts on “Atheist or Agnostic: A Confusion of Terms?

  1. God either exists or he doesn’t.

    Someone who claims that God doesn’t exist needs to be able to explain, with evidence, how everything happened all by itself.

    Agnostics are simply people who are either confused, or haven’t given the subject enough thought.


    1. Confused? Possibly. Haven’t given it enough thought? Not in the slightest.

      I don’t claim to know if there is a god. I don’t claim to know there isn’t a god. This is not for lack of thought put into the subject as it is a thought that crosses my head very often.

      Where I sit is in the position of not having evidence, so I do not formulate a belief.

      Despite many claims that say otherwise, it is VERY possible to not make a decision about belief or disbelief, nor do I see any reason TO make that decision without convincing evidence from either side – neither has produced that yet.

      I know, very Swiss of me, but that is how I really, truly feel.


      1. Charlie,

        If you apply reasoned thought the conclusion is that God exists.

        If you reject reason you become an atheist.

        The agnostic is someone who like the atheist cannot think rationally, but unlike the atheist, the agnostic is all heart.

        The modern world was brought into being by people who learned to reason.

        The atheist and the agnostic are throwbacks to ancient barbarism when thinking rationally wasn’t important.


        1. Surely you’re kidding right? Atheism is the result of rational thought. Theism is the result of faith. If you look up the definition of faith, you realize very quickly that to have faith you have to reject reason and rational thought. I thought I’d seen all forms of delusion when it comes to religion, but you just took it to another level.


    2. Definitely not true; I’m not confused and I’ve give the subject much thought. Let me propose an example: back in the medieval ages, many people could neither prove nor disprove that the world was geocentric. In that sense, it’s logical to take neither side given neither side provides definitive proof. I view the belief of God in the same manner.


  2. Either a god exist or it doesn’t. From my point of view, this was the only valid statement.
    1. Someone who BELIEVES God doesn’t exist, needs not to be able to explain ANYTHING – just as theists can’t explain anything as well. Especially the part with the evidence. Because theists have so much evidence. /irony. As you see on wiki, everyone has their proof and critics.
    2. Ok, you want explanation? PHYSICS / SCIENCE3. What we don’t know is just not discovered yet. Like the earth is not a disc – religions modified their dogmas. The earth is moving around the sun – religions modified their dogmas. Earth/Sun is not the center of the universe – guess what. Atoms are unsplittable – just not discovered back then. (Don’t even start with creationism. There is physical proof already) What was the cause for a big bang? Well, guess what. Not. Discovered. Yet. Period.
    3. “XXXXX are simply people…” – is just an ignorant statement, period. You pretend to know what drives them. Same could be said about theists. “They’re just people who easily believe anything they’ve been told.” (Well maybe they are. Maybe they’re the only ones who really know.)
    This leads to 4. One could also say that theists believe, because others believe, or something that they read. Well, Pick a random book, and believe everything in it happened just as written. Stupid, you say? What is Koran, Bible or Torah?
    Bottom line: It’s not theists or atheists f*ing the whole religious tolerance up, it’s people like you, who take their own believes as the only possible truth, denying every other possibility, basically those 100% gnostics. And pretending to be the one being in possess of the only truth is just the starting point for despotism and the opposite of what a wise man once considered as true wisdom.
    What I’m trying to say here is that everyone deserves the minimum tolerance for their own believes. It does not matter whether what I believe in is right, the important thing is the fraction of doubt everyone should have in their own belief. Unfortunately theism is – like stated in the article -mostly absolute. Which is the reason I don’t like religion. Religious people are nice, mostly, but the theory behind it is, like racism, fascism, despotism, you name it, based on everyone “other than in my group” being wrong. And that can never be a good thing. And I’m not talking about a specific religion, because christianity, islamism, or judaism don’t make a great difference in that specific point.


    1. Erd,

      Since the existence of God was proven over 2500 years ago by the pagan Greeks, atheists do indeed to be able to offer proof or at least evidence for their belief that God does not exist.

      Modern discoveries in cosmology have left physicists with their pants down around their ankles exclaiming that, “Everything came from nothing.”

      That is obviously nonsense.


      1. Do you ever stop and read what you write before you post?

        Pagan Greeks proved the existence of god 2500 years ago….. it’s been quite awhile since I’ve read a statement so incredibly fabricated.


  3. The way I see it, belief is a matter of choice. Both Atheism and Theism involve the notion of chosing between two claims: “God does not exist” or “God exists”.

    And Agnosticism and Gnosticism both deal with claim to knowledge or claim to absence of knowledge. This is why I have a hard time understanding why an Agnostic, in other words, someone who claims not to know, would also ever chose to claim: “God exists” or God does not exist”. Because, if you then asked them: “How do you know?”, they would have to reply: “I don’t know.”

    What I also think is that existence and non-existence are a matter of fact and are not affected by choice, belief or opinion. So, I also believe one can be Agnostic and, at tue same time, neither Atheist nor Theist. In other words, I believe, an Agnostic does not have to chose between the two claims about the existence or non-existence of Theis.

    Here is my summary: let’s call the claim that “God exists” A; and let’s call the claim that “God does not exist” B. If so, here is what each person would say:

    A Gnostic Theist: “I know that God exists. Therefore, I claim that God exists.”
    A Gnostic Atheist: “I know that God does not exist. Therefore, I claim thar God does not exist.”
    An Agnostic Theist: “Despite the fact I don’t know whether God exists or not, I still chose to claim that God exists.”
    An Agnostic Atheist: “Despite the fact I don’t know whether God exists or not, I still chose to claim that God does not exist.”
    An Agnostic Non-Atheist and Non-Theist: “I don’t know whether God exists or not. Therefore, I make no claim about God’s existence or non-existence.”

    To me, the claims of 3 and 4 make no sense.

    Just my two cents.



    1. I would say “guess” better fits the agnostic side. E.g., “I don’t know whether God exists or not, but I guess God exists”.
      I say this partly because people have different ideas what words or phrases mean in a language, e.g. agnostic (a)theism. Not everything sorts out with a clean or logical consensus. In those fuzzy cases, like exactly what the “agnostic” part entails (is it a claim, or a guess?), it’s probably better to start with the “softer” of the two, give some benefit of the doubt. Things can work up to the more solid form if need be.


  4. Why does it have to be about belief or disbelief in God? Beliefs are amalgams of proposed cause and effect. It’s nature or magic, and it’s continuation or discontinuation. The correct question would be “Is a worthwhile eternity possible, and if so how?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s