I once had a discussion with an atheist that went something like this:
ME: Are you saying there is no God?
HIM: No. I’m saying I don’t believe in God.
ME: So, you don’t believe that God exists.
HIM: No, that’s not what I’m saying. I simply lack belief in God’s existence.
ME: But surely the reason you lack belief in God’s existence is because you have concluded that he probably doesn’t exist – and I’m asking you to defend that position.
HIM: There is no position for me to defend. I am not commenting on God’s possible existence or non-existence. I am referring to my lack of belief, not God’s lack of existence.
ME: Do you concede that God MAY exist, irrespective of your unbelief?
HIM: I’m not making any definitive comment about God’s possible existence; I’m simply stating my unbelief.
Are you confused yet? The conversation went on for much longer, with me trying to make sense of the fine distinction he was making and him sidestepping any definitive statement about God’s existence.
The above summarised conversation reveals the philosophical position that is referred to as ‘soft atheism’ which has become the fall-back position of the New Atheist movement. It is a position that focuses on a person’s lack of belief rather than making any assertions about God’s existence or non-existence.
This is a recent subtle but significant departure from the classical definition of atheism which, historically, has been the assertion that God doesn’t exist. This classical definition is now referred to as hard atheism. Hard atheism is a knowledge claim and, as such, it bears the burden of proof.
Recognising the impossibility or extreme difficulty of defending this position, new atheists have added further nuance to their definition of atheism. Under the influence of figures like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (and even earlier voices such as Antony Flew) there has been a rhetorical shift. Many atheists now define atheism more loosely, not as an existential claim but as a personal lack of belief in God. This is sometimes called soft atheism or negative atheism.
This redefinition is strategic. By framing atheism as merely the absence of belief, atheists avoid the burden of proof. Instead of having to defend the universal negative “God does not exist,” they can simply say, “I see no evidence, therefore I don’t believe.” This moves the entire responsibility of argument onto the theist.
But this is where confusion with agnosticism arises.
Confusion with Agnosticism
The term agnosticism (from a-gnosis, “no knowledge”) was coined by Thomas Huxley in the 19th century. An agnostic claims that the existence of God is either unknown or unknowable. An agnostic would say, “I don’t know if God exists. The evidence isn’t sufficient to decide.” Soft atheism sounds very similar: “I don’t believe in God.” But there is a subtle distinction. The agnostic suspends judgment, claiming that knowledge is unattainable (or at least unavailable at present) whereas the soft atheist withholds belief, not necessarily because it is unknowable, but because they are unconvinced.
So, while agnosticism is about a lack of knowledge, soft atheism is about a lack of belief. Yet in practice, the two often overlap so closely that they can appear indistinguishable because both the agnostic and the soft atheist end up NOT having a positive belief in God.
Why the Distinction Matters
This definitional shift is more than mere semantics; it has apologetic and philosophical consequences:
Burden of proof: Hard atheism (“there is no God”) makes a universal claim that requires substantial justification. By adopting soft atheism (“I merely lack belief”), atheists sidestep that obligation and place the entire argumentative burden on theists.
Debate framing: New Atheists often oscillate between these definitions. In popular books, Richard Dawkins will argue as if God’s existence is virtually impossible (a hard atheistic stance), but when pressed philosophically, he retreats to the “lack of belief” definition.
Identity and clarity: The redefinition dilutes the classical understanding. Critics argue that what is now called “soft atheism” would historically have been labelled agnosticism.
The Response of Christian Apologists
William Lane Craig argues that this recent dilution of the definition of atheism is simply a means of side-stepping the burden of proof and confuses this position with agnosticism. By redefining atheism as a mere psychological state rather than a definitive claim about external reality the soft atheist retreats to an unassailable subjective position. Craig states:
“For him [the soft atheist] atheism is just a psychological state and therefore it is neither true nor false. It is not a view. It’s a description of one’s psychology. Therefore the person who claims to be an atheist in this psychological sense makes no assertion and has nothing to prove because he doesn’t make any claim.” (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., 2008, pp. 30–31).
Craig also points out that under this ‘soft’ definition of atheism, new born babies, infants and even animals must also be declared to be atheists because they lack a positive belief in God. This reveals the absurdity of the position.
Frank Turek voices a similar criticism of the soft atheist’s position, claiming that the “I just lack belief” stance is a dodge. He notes that everyone has a worldview and must account for reality. Saying “I just lack belief” doesn’t absolve someone from defending their worldview assumptions. By rejecting God, even passively, the soft atheist is already adopting a worldview that needs justification. Simply “lacking belief” is not a neutral stance—it is a rejection of theism’s explanatory framework.
Alvin Plantinga voices the same critique, arguing that unbelief itself is not a neutral stance but presupposes its own epistemic commitments.
S. Lewis makes a similar point. In his classic book,Mere Christianity,he argues that avoiding belief in God is itself a decision with worldview consequences.
Taken together, these critiques highlight that even soft atheism cannot sidestep the responsibility of providing an alternative explanation for the observable universe. A mere lack of belief in God cannot be logically divorced from the implicit inference of God’s non-existence, and this, in turn, raises an unavoidable epistemological question that demands an answer.
The Wrong Terminology
I would add a further semantic critique. The word “atheist” literally means “no God”. It does not mean “no belief”. The word comes from the Greek word, theos, (“God”) with the all-important added alpha prefix. In ancient Greek, the alpha prefix means “no” or “without”. This is always the case. For example, the word ‘apathy’ (“no pathos”) means no feelings or emotional attachment. The word ‘amoral’ means no morals. And the word ‘agnostic’ (from the Greek word for knowledge, “gnosis”) means “no knowledge”. Similarly, the word ‘atheist’ literally means “no God”. It is a statement that asserts one’s alignment with the claim that God does not exist.
If so-called soft atheists want to step back from such a bold claim (and therefore avoid the need to defend such a claim) and, instead, simply refer to their psychological state of a lack of belief, they are using the wrong term. Instead of the term “atheist” (no God) they should be using the term “apistic” (no belief) from the Greek word for faith or belief, “pistis”. If so-called soft atheists are merely referring to their lack of belief, they are using the wrong term.
Inconsistency
Furthermore, I would also point out the inconsistency of many so-called ‘soft atheists’. They argue vehemently against theism, aggressively attacking the theist’s arguments with passion and, at times, even vitriol, yet when pressed to defend their own position they retreat to their claim of soft atheism. They engage in hostile rhetoric as if they are hard atheists but, when challenged about their own position, they retreat to soft atheism to avoid the burden of proof. In theory, soft atheism implies a neutral position regarding the existential question of God’s existence but, in practice, soft atheists often demonstrate a hardened resolve to oppose any arguments that speak to God’s possible existence.
Words are important. They have actual meaning and do not merely mean whatever we want them to mean. “Atheist” means the view that there is “no God”. It is not describing one’s psychological state; it is a claim about an existential reality that bears the burden of proof. If a person isn’t willing to front up to such a bold claim, they shouldn’t use the term” atheist”. They are merely an “apistic” or, perhaps, an agnostic.
But if this is what they truly are – someone who merely lacks belief rather than someone who asserts God’s non-existence – why do so many ‘apistics’ argue so vehemently against those who do believe in God’s existence? If an apistic is not making any hard claim about God’s non-existence, why are they often so determined in their opposition to anyone who claims to believe in God? There is a huge inconsistency at work here that reveals the deceptive nature of so-called soft atheism. The claim of soft atheism is often merely a convenient, unassailable shell into which a practising hard atheist can retreat when pressed to defend their position.
Soft atheism has gained traction in recent years because it allows rhetorical attack without philosophical vulnerability. It also mirrors a broader post-modern cultural shift toward subjectivism – defining one’s position purely in terms of personal psychology rather than objective reality. But surely the central issue that is at stake is not the existence or non-existence of personal belief, but the existence or non-existence of God himself.
If atheists wish to meaningfully critique theism, they must move beyond the evasiveness of mere personal “lack of belief” and offer a coherent, defensible worldview that addresses this core issue.