Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism

[LostOne4Ever]

38. Does the author know what the words he is using actually mean?

The author of this article gives me the distinct impression that he either does not actually know what the terms agnosticism or atheism actually mean, or that he is relying on popular misconception of the term to make an argument an argument in favor of implicit atheism.

As has been said above, atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). You either believe a god exists (theist) or you don't (atheist). Both groups have subgroups and subdivisions. Theists, for example, can be divided into polytheists, monotheists, and even pan-theists. Atheists can be divided into those who believe there is no god (positive or explicit atheism) and those who lack a belief in any god but don't necessarily believe there is no god (negative or implicit atheism).

Agnosticism is the philosophy that true knowledge is unknowable. It can be expanded far beyond the question of "Do any gods exist?" However, with regards to that question, if one believes that its impossible to ever know for certain if there are or there are not any gods then one is an Agnostic with regards to theism.

Further, its possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist or both an agnostic and a theist. Implicit atheism is pretty much the definition of an agnostic atheist, and if one believes that its impossible to know for certain if there are or are not any god(s) but chooses to believe without justification then one is an agnostic theist.

Assuming the author knows better, I wish he had chosen to explain this difference rather than relying on the popular misconception. The term atheist has a strong stigma and could use more people identifying with it rather than causing more confusion on the meaning of the terms atheist and agnostic.

Its for this reason I personally prefer to be called an Atheist rather than an agnostic.