Agnosticism has two general meanings. One is that knowledge of the divine is impossible. This definition is not to be mistaken with an alternative to atheism. Atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with the basis for such belief. For example, Agnostic Atheism holds that knowledge of the divine is impossible(or currently unheld) and thus belief in God is unjustified and illogical. On the other hand, ever hear a theist say ‘just have faith’? That is an agnostic position, as they are admitting that they have no knowledge of whether God exists, and yet still believe in light of that. Gnostic atheism and theism are pretty much self-explanatory given that the definition of Gnostic to be ‘believing that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of the divine is possible or currently held’.

On the other hand, Agnosticism can be also used in a simple sense, not believing in something without evidence. For example, I am agnostic about the existence of invisible immaterial pink leprechauns inside my computer, making it work. I have no evidence that they do not exist, yet nobody would call me presumptuous for assuming they don’t exist. As there is no evidence for them, the logical answer is that they don’t exist. The amount of things I am agnostic about is infinite, including the infinite possibilities of extraneous things I have ye to even think of. Yet believing in such things is not illogical. Thus too, is belief in a god bounded. Unless strict and clear evidence is provided, non-belief is not illogical, in fact, it is the default logical choice.