There has always been a discussion about Agnosticism and Atheism. Are they mutually exclusive or are they supposed to be combined in a two-dimensional scale? It’s a difficult question to tackle but Zach Weiner’s post is one of the best texts I read on this subject.
He makes an interesting point about the question of whether or not you’re agnostic should come before the question of whether or not you’re atheist. Here’s his proposal in graphical terms:
His point is that if a person is agnostic (i.e. a person that believes it is impossible to know if there’s a deity), then there isn’t really a point about discussing whether or not you’re an atheist (i.e. a person that doesn’t believe in the existence of deities) because you’ve already stated that it is impossible to know if there is a God or not.
The other interesting point that he tackles is the absolute certainty with which one can affirm he/she is an Agnostic or Atheist. It all comes down to the knowledge you possess at this point and things can (and most probably will) change in the future.
So, for now, I’d make his words my own:
I like to just call myself “irreligious.” Whether I’m agnostic or gnostic or atheist or whatever is really dependent on what we’re talking about. But I know for a fact that I don’t attend a place of worship, and don’t assume any books are sacred.