"‘Atheism’ is a much simpler concept than ‘Christianity’ or ‘Hinduism’, but the word atheism is still used in a wide variety of ways.

This can cause confusion. Someone may announce that she is an atheist, and her listeners may assume she is one type of atheist, when really she is a different type of atheist.

So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism, organized into 7 sets. Some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot. For example, it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic, narrow, friendly atheist. But one cannot simultaneously be both a passive atheist and a militant atheist.

This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism.

For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.”

1. Difference in Knowledge
   A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.

An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.

2. Difference in Affirmation
   A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.

A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.

3. Difference in Scope
   A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism
   An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.

An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.

A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.

5. Difference in Openness
   A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.

An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.

6. Difference in Action
   A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.

An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.

A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)

7. Difference in Religiosity
   A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.

Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist I think... I completely agree with your statement that my belief or opinion will change with evidence. I try not to be close minded.

Love you - thank you!

To me, these distinctions matter, if at all, philosophically only. For all practical purposes, I am an atheist and I think there is enough rational argument to come to the conclusions that there is no god or creator. This hair-splitting only comes up with religion for some reason. No-one ever discusses whether they are aunicorny or just agnostic about the question if there is pink unicorn revolving around the black hole in the center of our galaxy. We cannot really rule that out so strictly speaking we would have to be agnostic about it. But hell no, I am totally aunicorny in the same way as I am totally atheist. Because the alternatives are just too silly: they explain nothing, they predict nothing, they do not fit into any scientific theory, and they beg to get cut off by Occam's razor.
So, let us cut them off and not waste any more time on them.

The difference for me has always been a belief/knowledge issue. In a technical sense everyone is agnostic, there is no way to fully know anything. Atheists In my opinion do not put forward a a disbelief or a belief that God is not real, just no positive belief that God is real. Your dictionary definition gets confusing because it describes atheists in 2 different ways. At first it's described as a lack of belief or strong disbelief, the later describes atheism as a belief that there is no God. The strong disbelief corresponds with the second definition, but what I think is more valid would be the "lack of belief" statement. I think atheists are "a theists" or without theology. Doesn't mean they believe a theology is wrong, does mean they haven't been convinced it's correct. Like in court, the options are not guilty or innocent, they are guilty or not guilty. That means either, HE DID IT, or THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE HE DID IT, and the whole time without asserting that he didn't do it.

Silvereyes
I agree with what you say. But you are missing a nuance. Per what you said and what I say below, I am an agnostic Agnostic (or an extreme Agnostic as I say below).

Note: the scales I mention below are informed by Richard Dawkins books.

2 scales. 1) What is knowable - gnostic to agnostic. 2) What do you believe - theist to atheist.

I am an extreme agnostic. Evidence is the only form of knowledge that exists. As such I don't consider the 2nd scale valid*. We have no evidence to support the existence or nonexistence of god(s), supernatural, et cetera. Therefore, the 2nd scale is invalid.

• For science to consider a question, it must be quantifiable or verifiable. God is neither.

Point is, if you are theist or atheist, I consider you insane for the exact same reason. You believe something without evidence.

Labels are important because they allow us to communicate faster. If we agree on what a label means, we can use it in order to focus on other ideas. I don't have to explain what a car is everytime I mention that I drove to work. On the other hand, labels can be used to corrupt a definition. McCarthy did that with "communist" and Christians do it with "atheist"; since they have corrupted their definition of atheist, I have to either drop the label when talking to them about it, replacing it with my definition, or educate them (everyone) on the definition. I can only do the former for so long. The core of what I want to say here is: labels are inevitable and if we are allowed to connect labels to any particular definition, we are corrupting communication.

So we need to agree on definitions and the labels that replace them in mundane conversation. How do we do that? Ideally, we should assign one label to each definition, and have labels covering different complexity levels of definitions. For instance: employee = is payed to perform some job; manager = employee that assigns tasks to others. Also, we need definitions to be consistent with knowledge and logic and common use.

Now, let us combine these notions and talk about the labels for people who do not believe in any god. One very early mistake you make is this: "I do not reject the idea of the possibility of a creator of some sort. I do not believe it. But, I do not disbelieve it.". Belief, unlike knowledge, is binary: you either do believe or do not believe. You accept a claim or reject it. Take the favorite example of Traci Harris (AXP): if I have a jar of coins in front of me, there are only two options regarding the number of coins in the jar: it's either even or odd; if I say it is odd, you either believe me or do not believe me. When it comes to the knowledge about this claim: it may be known to be true; it may not known to be true; and it may be known to be false. So you cannot apply a single binary term to label this. You need at least two: one to define your belief or lack thereof, and another to define the level of knowledge you have in regards to that belief.

This is where Christians become important again. "Atheist", for them, is anyone who does not believe their god is real. Then, because of their beliefs, assign to atheist all sorts of corrupt behavior. We have two alternatives then:

1. Stop using the label "atheist". We could all call ourselves "agnostic", or anything else. But the moment you disagree about their god, you will be labeled an "atheist" because that is a sufficient condition for applying the label.
2. Normalize the label. While atheists are a small number of people, they are kept isolated from the larger community, which can then demonize them. But if your coworker, friend, boss, subordinate, are atheists but do not correspond to the label, cognitive dissonance starts ringing and the term must be revised to the common denominator between these people -- disbelief in any god.

Alternative 1 is what folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson take. I think they are doing a disservice to the community in general because (1) it is incorrect to conflate atheist with necessarily making a positive claim that no god exist, and (2) it reinforces the misconception of Christians that atheists are evil. Help your community, let us normalize atheism. To paraphrase X-Men, be atheist and proud

p.s.: shit, that was so much longer than I intended. But that's what you get when labels are off the table. My apologies.

My idea of being an agnostic. Is about protecting the beliefs of all against those who would force their will on others. I believe in science more than any with also the idea of there possibly being some spiritualistic being or beings out there who knows with over 5000 different religions out there. But I want debate. Study. To know and understand all religions and the people under them. The only truth I’ve found is Christianity at its core is evil because of the forcefulness it creates in its followers. So most of my life has been standing up against it for science and other beliefs.

I agree. I don't care what people call me. my opinion is that I don't say That there definately is no god, just that anyone who has tried to present evidence that there is one has failed to produce anything like enough evidence to even cause reasonable doubt. Some would describe me as an athiest others agnostic, or even an agostic athiest. Doesnt matter what you call me as long as people understand the way I think. Also, being an athiest only really says one thing about you anyway, that you don't believe in god. I know athiests who beleive in magic or ghosts. Based on that I prefer the term 'naturalist'. Its not confusing, and it tells people straight away that not only do I not accept there is a god, but I don't accept that there is anything supernatural

@silvereyes I totally agree with you. Do not like labels. Conflicted between atheist and agnostic myself. Freethinker seems to be an umbrella term. I think I'll continue to use freethinker.

i will quote isaac asimov:

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”

now i will quote myself: i can't be an agnostic because i know that there is no tooth fairy, even though i've had more evidence of a tooth fairy than of a deity of any sort. i am not unsure. i feel sure. i don't think i have to prove to myself that the sidewalk (still) exists (or ever existed) by checking every morning. some things are so ridiculous that we DO know, even without proof, because of that good ol' not being able to prove a negative thing. i can't be an agnostic about every damned thing in the world. logic prevails, logic and observation, and those things tell me there are no gods, not abrahamic, not anything that fits any definition of god. (therefore i also am not "spiritual." ) i like prometheus a lot but nope, he's not real either.

that doesn't mean i think agnostics are fools. that only means i can't be one.

g

It is very simple:

Q1 "Does a god exist?"
A1 "I don't know, I'm agnostic."
Q2 "Do you believe that a god exists?"
A2 "No, I'm an atheist."

No sane atheist would claim to be able to prove the non-existence of a god, hence any sane atheist is also agnostic.

Ahhhh yes, labels and semantics. I don't like either. However, people of influence have made labels "matter". So I have to use the label "atheist" to get people away from asking me silly religious questions.

My understanding was atheist is someone who does not believe and feels they know there are no gods. And that agnostic meant you don't know and don't care to know because it has no bearing on your life.

I chose, long ago, to let that all go. Humans tend to overcomplicate things and this is quite a complex subject. I don't even know what it's called when someone can't deny all gods. I wouldn't even try to guess. My brain hurts enough from all the thinking I do lol.

To each their own I feel. I only say atheist to get my point across and I come to sites like this to speak to like minded individuals. The labels and words themselves are meaningless to me.

Very good post though!

It's probably safe to say we will never know for certain anything in this lifetime anything about the supernatural, that's if it even exists ?

This is still a popular spot to post. You only have to read the "Learn" on our site to see that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive.

The basic difference between the Atheist and Agnostic is:
The Atheist says, there is no Great Bunny Rabbit, period!
The Agnostic says, there is no PROOF of the existence of a Great Bunny Rabbit; and there is no PROOF that there isn't a Great Bunny Rabbit!

This is recycled from the past. Months ago. What's going on here?

Agnosticism is about FACTS - can't verify them.
Atheism is about BELIEF - concluding there aren't enough facts to believe God exists.

I think all atheists are also agnostic, but someone who is agnostic may not be atheist if he/she believes (however unlikely) that God exists.

It was worth reading to the end
I enjoy a well written rant.
-mat

Call me anything you like, just don't call me late for supper ?

In a sense, everyone is agnostic in a way, even religious people because even if they claim to know there is a god they dont. Lol. I'm Athiest because I don't believe there is a god. I'm am a trillion times sure there is no abrahamic god but just like everyone else in the world I don't know if there is a god of some type or not. I just believe there isn't any type of god. So I claim atheism.

That is a good read. youre very intelligent. after reading what you said in your bio or whatever you call that. I guess im a little of both. I guess i am open to believe if the evidence presents itself

I have a problem with the word Agnostic, which is that technically, neither believers nor non-believers can absolutely know, or prove anything. Is not EVERYONE technically Agnostic. I therefore feel the word is largely USELESS except in a few circumstances which I'll get to. What really matters is belief. What does it really matter if you entertain the notion of some sort of god which is absent of any doctrine (religion) or is not a personal god who intervenes in our affairs. It seems to me non-sensical to label yourself based upon anything other than your beliefs, unless you simply wish to avoid the question. Perhaps you don't want the baggage which comes with a label, or don't wish to be pigeon-holed. These are understandable and valid reasons any of us may wish to choose at times a non-commital word such as Agnostic. But let's be honest with ourselves about what is being done. I feel the term Agnostic most makes sense for those truly torn between belief and non-belief. I would presume that for many, though not necessarily all, that would be a transitional and temporary state. There are very few things which can be proven absolutely. The bottom line comes down to what, based on the preponderance of evidence, you find believable or credible. Thoughts?

In logic and probability theory, two events (or propositions) are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both occur (be true). A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.
Mutual exclusivity - Wikipedia

For those who say the two are not mutually exclusive, you cannot say with certainty that there is no god and leave the door open to the possibility that one could exist at the same time, but at present there is no evidence.

I find the agnostic view the most open minded.

Great post! NOT a rant--too thought provoking. Don't put your soap box where you can't find it again.