# Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487 "2010-02-10T22:48:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/1 "2010-02-10T22:48:31Z")
In [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551137) [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551409), an agnostic, **Frank apisa** is saying that atheists have faith and that atheism is basically a religion. That’s not what this thread is about; that’s being debated in the other threads. What I’m debating here is just the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. It seems that usually, the way atheism is used, it’s defined as being sure that no gods exist. And agnosticism as not knowing at all if a god exists. I don’t like these definitions. I don’t think they’re very useful. There are two main reasons: 1. From a practical standpoint, they’re exactly the same. Both the atheist and the agnostic doesn’t go to church, doesn’t pray, etc. 2. From the theoretical standpoint, they leave a lot out. What about the person who’s pretty sure there isn’t a god, but isn’t positive? Or someone who thinks it’s possible that gods exist, but just doesn’t think it’s likely? So, here’s what I propose. Atheism should mean “not believing in gods”. That’s it. Nothing about how sure you are in that belief, or how willing you are to accept new evidence. It’s about ontology - what exists. Agnosticism should be closer to the original definition. An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether or not god exists. It’s about epistemology - what we can know. Personally, I’m both an agnostic and an atheist. I’m an atheist, because it’s the logical default. I assume something doesn’t exist unless there is evidence otherwise (otherwise, you have to believe in an infinite amount of things, some of which are contradictory). I’m an agnostic, because god is supposed to be omnipotent. If a god existed, it could easily hide its existence and make the universe look as if it didn’t exist. And if a god did exist, there would be nothing it could do to prove it was literally omnipotent, only extremely powerful. It’s like counting to infinity. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/2 "2010-02-10T22:51:48Z")
Of course they’re not mutually exclusive, what a silly thing to claim. Agnosticism (literally a-gnosis) is a position where one claims that proof/certainty is elusive/impossible. Atheism (literally a-theism) is a lack of theism. As such, one can be an agnostic theist and believe that certainty is impossible but that’s why they call it faith and not proof, or one can be an agnostic atheist and lack a belief in God and believe that it’s impossible to prove the matter one way or another as God is defined as being beyond the structure of proof and refutation itself. Of course, there is also a division between hard and soft atheists, but that’s neither here nor there. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/3 "2010-02-10T23:06:38Z")
Atheism is commonly used to mean either “doesn’t believe in a god” or “believes its impossible for any god of any kind to exist”. The latter definition is almost never used by atheists themselves. Agnosticism commonly used for “An atheist who’s not entirely certain they’re an atheist.” For obvious reasons this is not a spectacularly useful definition. But what are you going to do? Refusing to acknowledge the way a word is commonly used just make it harder to communicate with you. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/4 "2010-02-10T23:06:50Z")
There are lots of positions with atheism and agnosticism and the two do–yes, officially–overlap. I’d suggest looking at the descriptions on the Wikipedia: > **[Atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions)** > > Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. > The first individuals to identify themselves as atheists lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolu... > **[Agnosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism)** > > Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. It can be categorized as an indifference or absence of firm beliefs in theistic religions and atheism on that basis. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." > The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agno... ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/5 "2010-02-10T23:07:41Z")
Officially? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/6 "2010-02-10T23:08:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Officially? Ayup, by whoever officiates definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/7 "2010-02-10T23:41:08Z")
Atheism is not a religion. But it implies a level of certainty that manifests in blogs, books and bus ads. Agnostics maintain a high degree of “don’t give a rat’s ass” which makes life more enjoyable. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Of course, there is also a division between hard and soft atheists, but that’s neither here nor there. Nonsense, of course it is. Or somewhere in between. I’m a hard agnostic. Everyone says so. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/8 "2010-02-11T00:01:42Z")
You can also be an agnostic theist. Someone who does not believe it is possible to KNOW if God exists, but has faith He does. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/9 "2010-02-11T00:11:34Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > You can also be an agnostic theist. Someone who does not believe it is possible to KNOW if God exists, but has faith He does. It is, of course, impossible to disprove the existence of a disinterested Creator. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/10 "2010-02-11T00:13:00Z")
When discussions like this pop up, I like to link to the Happy Heretic “brutal” thought experiment. > **[TheHappyHeretic.com is for sale | HugeDomains](https://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=thehappyheretic.com)** > > Get full access to this domain. Easy, seamless transactions. Zero percent financing available. > [@](#): > > There Is No Such Thing As an Agnostic > > … > > People who glom onto the complicated label “agnostic” do so for the uncomplicated reason that it seems to imply reason and open-mindedness, whereas the label “atheist” seems to imply stubborn close-mindedness. Both assumptions are wrong. The word “agnostic” means literally “without knowledge” or, more simply, “I don’t know.” But it is really just a cop-out word for atheist. It is a word that society has not yet blackened with foul adjectives. It is safer to utter in mixed company. However, it’s impossible not to “know” whether or not you acknowledge a deity. If you do, you know it. If you don’t, you know that too. And if you don’t, you are an atheist—a person without theistic beliefs. To say, “I am an agnostic” is to say, “I don’t know whether I believe in God or not.” Which is nonsense. > > If you consider yourself an “agnostic” here’s a good thought experiment. Consider all the gods you know about, one by one. Write them down or tick them off on your fingers, but think about them one at a time and ask about each, “Do I believe that this entity was and/or is a god with supernatural powers?” One by one, ask the question. Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Brahma, Allah, Jehovah—ask the question for each and every god you can think of. You may not answer, “I don’t know if they are gods or not” because the question is asking do you believe it? You will know the answer to that. And of course if you answer yes to any of them you are acknowledging a deity, meaning you have theistic beliefs, meaning you are a theist—just like a Lutheran. > > But you will find yourself answering no, over and over, until you tire of the exercise. You will never come to a yes. At that point you will realize that you acknowledge no deity, meaning you have no theistic beliefs, meaning you are an a-theist. It is simplicity itself. As much as we’d like that soft, squishy middle position, there isn’t one. I still see that there is still room for a “Teapot agnostic” or a soft atheist as I see myself. So, yeah, one by one the gods of the past were dismissed, until I can reach something that someone could call a god; however, it is (unfortunately) very likely to be irrelevant to us or that he/she/it would look at us humans funny for thinking that we are the main reason for the existence of the vast universe that we see. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/11 "2010-02-11T00:27:47Z")
First of all, Strinka…I most assuredly have never called atheism a religion…and on several occasions I have gone out of my way to specifically say “It is NOT a religion.” I think calling it a religion is a backdoor way for theists to insult atheism. If I am going to insult atheism, I will do it out-front…although I really see no reason to insult it. I have mentioned that I have debated with atheists who argue for “no god” with the same fervor theists argue that a god has to exist. And I have mentioned that when this happens, I see a similarity. BUT THERE IS NO WAY I THINK atheism is a religion. It is not. I’ve tried to take pains to indicate the similarity I see with atheistic and theistic methods of arguing is a personal perspective…and that I can certainly understand that some others may not see the similarity at all. (I do have a weird sense of humor.) As for the definitions…I would, if I could, put them all aside…and allow each individual to describe his/her position on individual issues without the need for identification as agnostic or atheistic. If you absolutely must define agnosticism, though, I would do away with the “impossible to know” ingredient. I realize that element has gotten into some dictionaries…but I think that is one of those “general usage” situations which with both agnostics and atheists must deal. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/12 "2010-02-11T00:34:11Z")
I haven’t read this thread beyond the OP, so if this is repetitive, I don’t care. The OP was so far off base that I want to start fresh. An atheist is someone who asserts the following: 1. If you say that God exists, it is up to you to prove it. This is called burden of proof. It is generally true in the world that anyone making a claim (at least a claim that is not immediately obviously true) has the burden of proving the truth of that claim, if they want other reasonable people to accept it. 2. Faith and reason (proof) do not have equal weight in deciding what is true. Observable evidence and rational proof are convincing to a rational person; faith is not. 3. If you can’t prove, with argument or evidence, that God exists, then in that case I don’t believe that God exists. If you have such proof or valid argument, please step forward with it and let’s see if it holds up. 4. (this is less universal of atheists, more for the philosophical variety) the very concept of God as expressed in the Judeo-Christo-Muslim tradition is so completely self-contradictory that the likelihood of being able to prove it is effectively nil. Agnostics differ from Atheists on all these points, but mainly on point #2. An agnostic would be likely to say something like this: “I’ve heard the arguments and evidence on both sides and I can’t decide who’s right. They both have their points. Since I can’t decide, I have to say that God may exist, in some form, but I just don’t know…” Full disclosure: I am an atheist from conviction, based on the necessity of a rational basis for my life. I don’t have much sympathy for agnostics, who it seems to me have the worst of both camps. I would be happy to have a separate debate about how much my need for observable evidence and rational proof for anything, let alone the existence of God, is or is not just another kind of religion or faith. That did not seem to be the point of this thread, so I will not pursue it here. Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/13 "2010-02-11T00:54:29Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > You can also be an agnostic theist. Someone who does not believe it is possible to KNOW if God exists, but has faith He does. Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Faith, to those who have it, is a way of “knowing” without proof. So it seems to me that virtually everyone who accepts the existence of God is doing so through faith, because faith is how they “know” it’s true. If you are positing someone who does not believe it is possible to PROVE that God exists but has faith, that is a different story. In that case, they “know” that God exists without proof. I regard such people as setting aside their basic rationality in this one area. But this brings up the interesting philosophical field of epistemology, which (as I recall from my college studies) asks the question “how do you know anything?” Maybe I should start a thread on that. Deep… Roddy ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/14 "2010-02-11T02:01:19Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It is, of course, impossible to disprove the existence of a disinterested Creator. Yep…I’m a agnostic Deist myself…about as disinterested as you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/15 "2010-02-11T02:03:09Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Faith, to those who have it, is a way of “knowing” without proof. So it seems to me that virtually everyone who accepts the existence of God is doing so through faith, because faith is how they “know” it’s true. > > If you are positing someone who does not believe it is possible to PROVE that God exists but has faith, that is a different story. In that case, they “know” that God exists without proof. I regard such people as setting aside their basic rationality in this one area. > > But this brings up the interesting philosophical field of epistemology, which (as I recall from my college studies) asks the question “how do you know anything?” Maybe I should start a thread on that. Deep… > Roddy No, it takes a separation of your intellectual knowledge and your emotional knowledge. Intellectually, you know that God is an unknown. Emotionally, you know God. I’ve known a lot of agnostic theists - a few Jesuits, a couple UU ministers. I think Martin Gardner would have/did describe himself that way. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/16 "2010-02-11T02:07:46Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > An atheist is someone who asserts the following: You’re wrong on all counts. All an atheist necessarily asserts is that he has no belief in any gods. Period. > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Faith, to those who have it, is a way of “knowing” without proof. So it seems to me that virtually everyone who accepts the existence of God is doing so through faith, because faith is how they “know” it’s true. Wrong again. I know plenty of theists who admit they don’t know God exists; that’s why they call it faith. If they had knowledge, faith would be unnecessary. They don’t “know” without proof; they “believe” without it. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/17 "2010-02-11T02:12:55Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > It is, of course, impossible to disprove the existence of a disinterested Creator. Oh, really? Just try me. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/18 "2010-02-11T02:16:16Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You’re wrong on all counts. All an atheist necessarily asserts is that he has no belief in any gods. Period. Nope. I’m an atheist who asserts that no gods exist. And that’s not a statement about my beliefs, but rather a statement about the world we live in. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/19 "2010-02-11T02:19:14Z")
> [@TheFatKid](#): > > Nope. > > I’m an atheist who asserts that no gods exist. And that’s not a statement about my beliefs, but rather a statement about the world we live in. I didn’t say you couldn’t assert something. You could assert anything you like. All you have to do to be an atheist is to be without belief in the existence of any gods. Nothing about that statement means you can’t also assert that no gods exist. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/20 "2010-02-11T02:27:29Z")
> [@TheFatKid](#): > > Oh, really? > > Just try me. Okay. Go. Disprove the existence of a disinterested creator. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=2)