...is subtle but makes a world of difference. In the former (and wrong) definition, the atheist is made to positively believe that no deity exists. In the latter (and correct) definition, the atheist simply lacks a belief. He may grant that the existence of a deity is possible, but the evidence presented to him so far has not yet been convincing enough to sway him toward a belief in any deity.

Let us imagine, for a moment, an isolated, third-world tribe who has had no contact with any religious ideas outside their own little world. Let us say that this tribe has no concept of any sort of god or supernatural deity. It's not that members of this tribe have weighed the evidence, pro and con, regarding God, and then rejected the concept. Rather, there was never any concept of any deity to begin with. It has simply never entered their minds that any supernatural beings should exist.

These tribal members do not "believe" there is no god. Instead, they lack a belief in any god or gods. Therefore, these tribal members are the exact opposite of theists — i.e., they are A-theists.

This prompts us to note a distinction between two types of atheists. One type is that of the "positive" atheist, also referred to as a "hard" atheist; while the other type is referred to as a "negative" atheist, or "soft" atheist.

"Positive" atheists are comparatively rare. It is the Positive Atheist who conforms more or less to the popular definition of atheism. This type of atheist maintains a positive belief that no deity of any sort exists in the universe. Theists often say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. When applied to positive atheism that may be true to a certain extent. I can positively claim that magical leprechauns don't exist, and most people would probably agree with me. But, can we really positively rule them out? Can we say for certain that leprechauns don't exists somewhere in the universe? Have we been to every corner of the universe to make sure? The answer is, of course, that we can't positively say there are no leprechauns anywhere in the universe. To say so, takes a little bit of faith.

On the other hand, we can say that we don't have a belief in leprechauns since we've not been presented with enough credible evidence for their existence yet. But this isn't a "positive" claim. This is a negative claim. We're not saying that there are no leprechauns anywhere in the universe. We're merely saying that we've not yet been presented with enough credible evidence to make us believe in their existence. Saying this requires absolutely no "faith" that there are no leprechauns. It's just a statement of fact. The exact same "negative" belief applies to the concept of God.

The vast majority of atheists are "negative" atheists. They don't believe in a supernatural deity; but they don't rule out the possibility of such an existence, either. Their's is more of a "wait-and-see" attitude. At the present time, they simply don't find the arguments for the existence of God, or Brahma, or Agwe, or Anubis, or Thor, etc., etc., etc., credible enough to actually believe in.

Now, I can almost hear several of you asking, "Hmm. 'negative atheism' sounds an awful lot like agnosticism. If the above defines atheism, what is agnosticism?" Whatever your idea is about agnosticism, please suspend it for a moment, because if it's based on the popular definition, it's probably wrong. The word "agnosticism" is consistently, almost universally, misused.

The term "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by Thomas Huxley to define his own unique beliefs. It seems that the term itself was initially meant as a joke. Huxley selected the early Christian sect called the "Gnostics" as a prime example of folks who claimed to have knowledge of the supernatural without justification. The term "gnostic" is a derivative of the Greek word gnosis, which means, "to know." So, Huxley simply added an "a-" to the word "gnostic" to indicate its opposite, and became the first "agnostic."

While the term now has many different applications in different fields of study, it generally refers to the impossibility of gaining certain types of knowledge. The agnostic believes that certain types of knowledge are inherently unknowable to the human mind. In the realm of theistic belief, agnosticism refers to the impossibility of the human mind to grasp certain aspects of a deity's existence.

Agnosticism isn't really a third alternative to theism or atheism, but rather refers to a different theological aspect entirely. The Agnostic holds that it is simply impossible for the human mind to comprehend certain aspects of deity.

Therefore, an agnostic theist will maintain that God exists, but that his nature is unknowable. We can know that God is, but we can't know what God is. The agnostic atheist will maintain that the whole supernatural realm itself is unknowable to the natural human mind. Therefore, existence of a supernatural being is inherently impossible to ascertain.

Personally, I have no belief in any god, therefore by definition, I am an atheist. However, I'm not convinced that if such a being does exist, that the human mind isn't quite capable, under the right circumstances, of being aware of its existence and its nature; therefore I can't be called an agnostic, because the agnostic would maintain that such knowledge is inherently impossible to know. I'm not so sure that it's impossible to know. Difficult maybe; but not necessarily impossible.

It's ironic, then, that in casual conversations I often feel I have to refer to myself as an "agnostic" to avoid certain misconceptions about my beliefs. When the subject comes up in a conversation of average adults, I know that when they refer to the term "agnosticism," they are actually referring to what is technically known as "negative atheism." They are not referring to the proper definition of agnosticism. In fact, they've most likely never even heard of the proper definition.

While this course of action might be acceptable in many casual settings, in certain other settings I think that it's improper to perpetuate these inaccurate definitions. Many of the readers of this essay, including myself, are frequently involved in deep theological conversations of various types on internet discussion boards. In that context, I think it's very important that the more technical, and more accurate, definitions of these terms be maintained, and that effort is made to minimize the pervasive use of the improper, albeit common, definitions of these words.

Therefore, let me once again summarize the three definitions as they ought to be used: