Hard atheism is the proactive, anti-theist, “New Atheism” that we see so much of today. It is an evangelistic kind of atheism that sees religion of any kind as a cancer on society and it thinks its version of “reason” is the chemotherapy. This kind of atheism, which I think is a growing movement, is one that makes a universal negative (i.e. there is no God) into positive truth claim. It affirms the idea that there is no God. When someone says “there is no God” the hard atheist says “amen, that’s true.”
Soft Atheism is the perspective that simply says “I don’t see any reason to believe in God and therefore I don’t.” They don’t make the positive claim “there is no God” they make the softer claim “I don’t personally think there is a God.” This type of atheist is not evangelistic you usually only run into them when you happen to ask them their thoughts, they are not actively recruiting for their team. It’s reasonable to still ask them why they don’t believe in God, but it is not fair to ask them to prove their position because their position is merely that of “unconvinced as it relates to God.”
Agnosticism is the notion of being undecided and uncommitted to a position about God’s existence. This position says “there might be a God, I just don’t know personally.” True agnostics are really not evangelistic at all because they don’t have a position to win anyone to other than uncertainty. It might be fair to ask this person if they would be willing to hear a case for God’s existence but they don’t really have to defend their position because technically they aren’t committed to one.
Atheism literally means “without God” or “no God” while Agnosticism means “without knowledge” or “no knowledge.” Something I find interesting is that many atheists today act like hard atheists until you ask them to defend their stated position that “there is no God” and then they pretend to be soft atheists. They make positive claims, they evangelize to their cause trying to get people to affirm the idea that there is no God, they are combative and obnoxious towards theists but as soon as they are pressed they suddenly act as though they are in the camp of soft atheism or agnosticism. This is a dodge to avoid answering for the claims they have made. It is the case, however, that he who makes a claim bears the burden of proof.
I claim there is a God and I have a case for my view on stand by to deliver to those who ask me for a reason why I believe. Those who say they are unconvinced or uncommitted to the idea of God and simply mind their own business don’t have to defend themselves. Those who go on the offensive and proclaim “there is no God” and who badger people of faith and call us nasty names for believing in God…they have to defend their claim. They are not free to be one thing and then run and hide like cowards behind the more reasonable versions of their brethren. But they do it all the time. Do not let them.
