# 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:** 11
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/201 "2010-02-14T02:14:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I can’t agree with you here. Atheism is a meaningful descriptor even if it applies to babies. > > If it helps. think instead of the “feral child alone on a tropic island” or "civilization which evolved with the concept of god being introcuded "examples I gave earlier. All that’s required for atheism is a lack of belief in God. A baby lacks a belief in God, a feral child lacks a belief in God, a civilization where nobody ever invented the idea of god lacks a belief in God. > > Now, it’s true that a baby doesn’t have the very capability to come up with a system of logic and epistemology to justify any views, that goes without saying. But by the same token it is inarguable that a baby does not, in fact, believe in God. If the issue hadn’t been politicized (sorry, I know that’s not the best word but it’s the one I’m using…), then it really wouldn’t be much of an issue. We don’t have a problem saying, as you pointed out, that a baby is not a sports enthusiast, or not involved with politics, but if we point out that a baby is not a believer in God then we need to find another way to say it because we’ve reached a state where there are two different ‘camps’. > > I think that’s part of the problem in the first place, that theism is considered so strongly to be the default that we need to explain the specifics and justification of not being a theist. Nobody would bat an eye if it was pointed out that a baby didn’t believe in supply-side economics, but the concept that a baby doesn’t believe in God, well… And sure, you can state that it’s about “does not computer”, but that’s a reason for a lack of belief, it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lack of belief. A baby’s atheism isn’t based on a philosophical analysis of the issues, it’s simply based on the fact that human beings lack theism until they either invent it themselves or someone tells them about it and convinces them. But you seem to be stripping the word of any meaning. Based on your definition, a rock is an atheistic. I’ll even grant you that. But a rock is also a-atheistic. The fact is that to the degree that atheism is a useful word, it is one position on the toggle switch. I tried to point to examples that were similar in this regard. If anything, the default position is agnostic, in an "unable to determine one way or the other. To be clear, I am not trying to argue for theism being the default position. I do not think it is; saying so makes no sense to me. But neither does saying that atheism, as we use the word, contrasting it with theism, is a default position. I can see how you can parse things that you can be technically correct, by looking at “atheism” in isolation. But you know that the word is used as one position of the toggle switch. Can you think of any similar toggled positions that you would feel comfortable putting a baby in one camp? Any positions that are dichotomous with which you wouldn’t feel equally comfortable saying a baby falls into one category and not the other? ---
**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 14, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/202 "2010-02-14T02:32:21Z")
No, you’ve taken it too far. A rock doesn’t have _any beliefs nor the potential for such._ I think it’s fair to state that when we’re talking about theism/atheism, we’re talking about humans and human beliefs. (Well, and aliens if we ever find any) A baby isn’t an a-a-theist any more than a baby is a-a-sexual. No meaning is robbed. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Does a baby lack belief in a God or gods? And, sure, babies are apolitical, babies are not racist, babies are not interested in conspicuous consumption, babies do not love driving a Porsche, and so on. None of those are particularly controversial and nobody would argue them. But when the claim is “babies do not have any belief in God” the answer is “well, don’t lump them in with those atheists!” I see no reason not to. What’s the cut off point, after all. Let’s take that baby and drop him on the tropical island alone. Is he an atheist at age 1? 5? 12? 18? 21 when we rescue him and teach him English by magic and ask him what he thinks about God? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/203 "2010-02-14T03:21:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > But this is true of ALL factual statements, not just statements about God. > > For example, I strongly believe that George Washington was the first President of the United States. However, given enough evidence to the contrary I could be convinced that my belief was mistaken and that everything I’d been taught in school and learned from history books is a lie. I believe that the statement “George Washington was the first President of the United States” is true, even while keeping in mind the tiny possibility that I might be wrong. > > Does this make me an “agnostic” about George Washington? Not at all. I feel confident in going about my day-to-day business secure that my historical knowledge is correct. If my daughter asks for help on her homework I’ll tell her who the first President was without adding any weaselly qualifiers. I’m as certain of that fact about Washington as I am about anything. > > The same is true of God. I believe there is no God, even while acknowledging that with sufficient evidence I could be convinced otherwise. That doesn’t make me agnostic. I don’t think you’re thinking this through sufficiently. Just imagine what would be required for the “GW as first Pres is a hoax” hypothesis to be true. It’s completely untenable. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that GW was the first President. It’s not just something that I “strongly believe”. And that’s not because I simply accept it at face value. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/204 "2010-02-14T03:36:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > babies are not racist Actually, as it turns out, [they can be](http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm). > [@](#): > > new studies have found that by this age—three months—many babies start to prefer faces of people from their own race to those of another race. This early favoritism may represent the first glimmers of racial prejudice ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/205 "2010-02-14T05:34:25Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, you’ve taken it too far. A rock doesn’t have _any beliefs nor the potential for such._ I think it’s fair to state that when we’re talking about theism/atheism, we’re talking about humans and human beliefs. (Well, and aliens if we ever find any) But the “potential” for belief is immaterial. You’re talking about a baby at a point in time when his ability to deal with these concepts is that of a rock. Here’s where I think the problem lies: you’re really using two definitions for atheism then conflating them. One definition is just as you describe, a super-literal, the word in a vacuum definition. But the other definition, the one we use every day in these discussions, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s the flip side of theism. And in that sense the baby has not chosen one or the other. Yes, he hasn’t chosen theism. But, to just as strong a degree, he hasn’t chosen atheism. He is neither for nor against either. And he is equally for and agains both. Let me see if this analogy works. Take a computer. And let’s say we’re talking about it in the world where all computers are either a PC or a Mac. Well, I made a computer. It has a screen a keyboard, a hard drive, a mother board—all the things a computer needs. The only thing it doesn’t have yet is an operating system. At this point in its manufacture I’m torn as to whether I’m going to make this a PC or a Mac machine. So if you ask me which it is, I say neither. If you ask me what it can be, I say either, If you ask me, which does it have the ability to become, I say both. This is our baby. Just because I haven’t yet installed a Mac operating system doesn’t mean it is a PC. And just because I haven’t installed a PC operating system doesn’t make it a Mac. At some point, it will be one or the other, just like our baby. But until the operating system is installed it is equally neither. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > A baby isn’t an a-a-theist any more than a baby is a-a-sexual. No meaning is robbed. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Does a baby lack belief in a God or gods? And, sure, babies are apolitical, babies are not racist, babies are not interested in conspicuous consumption, babies do not love driving a Porsche, and so on. None of those are particularly controversial and nobody would argue them. But when the claim is “babies do not have any belief in God” the answer is “well, don’t lump them in with those atheists!” I think they’re not controversial because you’ve chosen things that are not dichotomies. In this you use the technical-in-the-vacuum definition, and as I’ve said, as far as that goes, I think you are correct. But I also think it is a meaningless thing to say. A baby is a-(put anything here you like except food and nurturing). But the way “atheism” is used in these discussions it is not stripped of all connotation. Theism and atheism are opposite sides of the coin. And you’re using one definition to squeeze babies into an atheist definition and then taking that very limited hyper=technical classification and inserting it into the general theist/atheist discussion. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I see no reason not to. What’s the cut off point, after all. Let’s take that baby and drop him on the tropical island alone. Is he an atheist at age 1? 5? 12? 18? 21 when we rescue him and teach him English by magic and ask him what he thinks about God? Why or why not? I would say he is either an atheist or a theist only at that point when he ponders the notion and comes down on one side or the other. I could envision a baby on one island getting to a point and asking “hey, where does that sun come from every morning” and developing a mythology which would include a sun god. I could also see a baby on another island simply not going there at all, not wondering about it one way or another. There could even be a third baby, a Spock-like super genius, who grows up seeing his world in strictly scientific, purely atheistic terms. I’d say: Baby #1 was neither until he developed a mythology with gods, then he became a theist. Baby #2 was neither—ever. Now he does fit your technical definition, as he is “without gods”, but I don’t think its fair to call him an atheist, as he hasn’t formed an opinion that could be classified as atheistic. Definitely not in the Strong sense, and not in the Weak sense either. He simply hasn’t formulated an opinion either way. The same way I haven’t formulated an opinion as to whether there should be more black or white cars on Jupiter. Baby #3 was neither. And he will have remained neither until he evaluated the notion of their being a god(s) and rejected it in some way (forming an opinion resembling either weak or strong atheism). To help explain where I’m coming from, here is what I base this on: - we seem to agree that there are two strains of atheism, weak and strong. - you offered agreement with my statement concerning strong atheism: “the Strong Atheist position seems to be more affirmative: there is no god.” - you offered this clarification concerning Weak atheism: “A weak atheist will use it as the default ending point (i.e. “ **I have seen no evidence of god or gods** and have not falsified the null hypothesis, **so I do not believe in any god or gods.** ”)” [bolding mine] - I agree with your explanation concerning WA. So, to be classified as an atheist one must hold the opinion of either a Strong or a Weak Hypothesis. The Weak strain is the lower bar, so we can just concentrate on that. Look at the portions of your quote that I bolded. A person making such a statement, even to himself, must _necessarily_ 1) be cognizant of the concept of “god or gods” and 2) have pondered the possibilities and have formed an opinion. Based on this, I think you’re accidentally conflating two different definitions for “atheism”, as I mentioned earlier. So, all babies are born neither atheistic nor theistic. Baby #1 is the only one who we can say for sure falls on one side of the line or the other. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/206 "2010-02-14T08:57:31Z")
This thread is frustrating, we seem to keep going back to treating God as a special case when it comes to level of disbelief. Here is how I think. I live my life with the assumption that there is not a God. When I make decisions I don’t think if a God would approve or wait to hear guidance. When I think about the origins of things I do not factor him into the equation. But I do the same with other day-to-day assumptions as well. When I cross a road I look for oncoming cars. I do not worry that invisible cars may come along and kill me. Now that could be a “belief” that invisible cars aren’t driving in my neighborhood, or a “thought”, or an “assumption”, but it pretty much boils down to the same thing: no need to worry about invisible cars. Now there is some small possibility that invisible cars exist, I couldn’t see them if they did, and maybe invisible drivers are pretty good and rarely get in accidents with visible drivers. I’m pretty darn sure that there are no invisible cars, and I live my life without taking them into account, but if you backed me in to a corner I probably could not say that they are impossible, as it is remotely plausible that they could exist. But it would be pointless to classify me as a hard a-invisicarist, or a soft a-invisicarist. If it turned out that there was evidence of invisible cars then I would change my mind. Some days I might say I don’t \*believe \*in invisible cars if I were asked, if someone tried to insist they existed, but did not produce evidence, I might get annoyed and say there _are no_ invisible cars, and if they were even more strident I might say that _can’t be_ invisible cars given our current theory of optics and physics. To me there are 4 levels of belief in a “thing”: 1. I believe it exists because I saw evidence of it or trust someone who has. 2. I think it could exist without too much damage to my world view, and I might even look for it. 3. I think there is a remote chance it could exist, I am somewhat curious about it, but I am not actively looking for it. 4. I think that the chance it exists is so remote that it’s not worth considering. I think 4 pretty much sums up atheists position. 3 is the person who goes to church and prays at family meals, but doesn’t get intellectually engaged with religion. I’m not sure what 2 is, but 1 is clearly the theist position. There is another, orthogonal aspect having to do with whether things like God are knowable, There are people who think a God may exist, but in a manner that makes it impossible for us to know his nature. I think that has some possible merit as an academic exercise, and I give those folks a little slack. Some agnostics fit this bill. But I find it really tiresome to be around people who want to play gotcha in regards to ideas about God, Bigfoot, Aliens, and a hidden shooter in the JFK assassination. It’s a trap: if you say that you are absolutely sure that none of could ever possibly be true, they they say that you are basing it on faith, so you’re just like us. On the other had, if you say they are remotely possible, then you are buying into their crap and termed as agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/207 "2010-02-14T09:39:54Z")
dup ---
**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 14, 2010, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/208 "2010-02-14T14:51:26Z")
It seems to me that an obvious ingredient in this discussion is that people who insist on being called atheists (whether weak atheist or strong atheist) seem to have one of three characteristics: First, those who claim to have a belief there are no gods. Second, those who feel the evidence (such as there is) points to no-gods. Third, those who demand that the lack of evidence FOR the existence of gods…requires that the default position must be be no-gods. In all those cases, by the way…we have a de facto presumption of no-gods. Those people who insist on being called agnostics (without qualifiers) seem not to claim to have a belief in no-god; do not feel the evidence points in either direction…and certainly not enough to suggest that a lack of evidence for the existence of gods means the default must be no-gods. By that standard…I am an agnostic…not an atheist. So why all this nonsense of insisting that agnostics are atheists by default. And considering all that, why in the name of Zeus would anyone want to argue that babies should be deemed atheists also? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/209 "2010-02-14T15:02:26Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > By that standard…I am an agnostic…not an atheist. So why all this nonsense of insisting that agnostics are atheists by default. > > And considering all that, why in the name of Zeus would anyone want to argue that babies should be deemed atheists also? Why don’t you just re-read this thread and others that you are involved in, as the explanations have been given to you multiple times? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/210 "2010-02-14T15:46:22Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Really?, because every thread I’ve been in (and I haven’t been in threads for a while) people don’t agree with my definition of God either. Atheists on this board want to define God with the attributes Christians tend to give him. Not those of someone who is Shamastic, Deist or Animist or even someone who is polytheistic. Why would that be? If I reject the idea of god, I do not define it in any way. Something that does not exist ,can not be defined. It has no attributes to discuss at all. ---
**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 14, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/211 "2010-02-14T16:03:48Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Why don’t you just re-read this thread and others that you are involved in, as the explanations have been given to you multiple times? Because I do not think rationalizations…whether they come from theists or atheists…actually explain anything. All they do is to make the people who offer the rationalizations feel better about their weaknesses. But I do thank you for the suggestion. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/212 "2010-02-14T16:19:38Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Because I do not think rationalizations…whether they come from theists or atheists…actually explain anything. All they do is to make the people who offer the rationalizations feel better about their weaknesses. > > But I do thank you for the suggestion. You were given explanations over and over again. Everything you’re asking has been answered and in depth. Calling them rationalizations doesn’t take away from this. There’s no reason to ask others to rehash the explanations for you all over again. ---
**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 14, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/213 "2010-02-14T16:25:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here’s where I think the problem lies: you’re really using two definitions for atheism then conflating them. One definition is just as you describe, a super-literal, the word in a vacuum definition. But the other definition, the one we use every day in these discussions, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I realize it’s something of an abstract definition. But that’s why I used the example of a 21 year old feral or a society that evolved without anybody ever mentioning God. They don’t fit into the WA/SA dynamic, but they’d undeniably be atheists. My argument is more that atheists are forced to ‘defend’ their lack of belief and so, sooner or later, they have to put a philosophical backing to it and elaborate. Not so with other groups, like those who don’t like skydiving and those who don’t collect stamps. That’s part of my point too, that instead of seeing a lack of theism as the default toggle, society sees it as an aberration that has to be explained. Nobody would bat an eye if you said that your baby doesn’t particularly feel the need to go sky diving. > [@magellan01](#): > > Let me see if this analogy works. Take a computer. And let’s say we’re talking about it in the world where all computers are either a PC or a Mac. Well, I made a computer. Except this is the same problem I mentioned above: someone lacks belief and then it is demanded that they explain why, so they elaborate and attempt to philosophically justify it. That’s where we get the SA/WA dynamic from. If you just came up to someone and said “I believe in a magical entity that is beyond reality and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent but life still sucks a lot of the time for a lot of people. So, do you believe in this entity too?” And they responded “naw”, one would think the discussion would end there. Instead, it’s most often “well why not?” (in various tones of incredulity). So it’s not a question of which type of software is loaded. If we were going to run with that analogy, it would be more like someone has a computer and doesn’t have QuickBooks installed and when asked why just says “eh, never decided to go buy it.” And then we demanded to see a philosophical justification and epistemological backing for them not buying QuickBooks. > [@magellan01](#): > > Theism and atheism are opposite sides of the coin. If someone said “babies are apolitical”, would you object? Clearly, babies do not display a political leaning, right? I’d wager most people would find that statement totally unremarkable, after all of course a baby can’t have personal politics yet. Nobody would say that being apolitical has to be supported with epistemological reasoning and a cosmological philosophy that puts that lack of political interest in context. > [@magellan01](#): > > - we seem to agree that there are two strains of atheism, weak and strong. Yes, perhaps I wasn’t clearer before this post, but I believe that they’ve only evolved that way because of pressure from the theistic community. I’ve never had to explain to anybody why I don’t think I’d particularly be into sex with other men, or why I really have no desire to use crystal meth, or why I don’t compete in triathalons, or why I’ll never go sky diving, or what have you. Now, it’s a bit different because most people are theists and most theists teach their children to also be theists. And then a non-zero percent of those children decide that they are, in fact, atheists. So we demand to know why they’ve rejected theism. But if we didn’t teach them theism and instead just waited for them to choose something later in life, I really doubt we’d even be having this discussion or would need a special word for “not religious” any more than we do for “not a sky diver”. ---
**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 14, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/214 "2010-02-14T16:37:13Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You were given explanations over and over again. Everything you’re asking has been answered and in depth. Calling them rationalizations doesn’t take away from this. There’s no reason to ask others to rehash the explanations for you all over again. If you want to consider rationalizations “explanations”…do so. Please allow me the freedom to consider rationalizations “rationalizations.” And if people want to call me an atheist…and I want to dispute that, please allow me the freedom to dispute it. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/215 "2010-02-14T17:03:05Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > If you want to consider rationalizations “explanations”…do so. Please allow me the freedom to consider rationalizations “rationalizations.” What’s this “allow me” bullshit? I didn’t put any restrictions on you. You can consider the explanations anything you want, but asking the same questions that have already been answered is being unnecessarily repetitive. > [@](#): > > And if people want to call me an atheist…and I want to dispute that, please allow me the freedom to dispute it. I didn’t say anything about your disputes. I said something about you asking questions that have been answered again and again. If you instead rebutted an answer you’ve been given, I wouldn’t have posted. Asking for clarification on something specific someone posted is one thing; asking something that’s been repeatedly answered for several pages isn’t productive in the least. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/216 "2010-02-14T17:21:56Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > It seems to me that an obvious ingredient in this discussion is that people who insist on being called atheists (whether weak atheist or strong atheist) seem to have one of three characteristics: > > First, those who claim to have a belief there are no gods. > > Second, those who feel the evidence (such as there is) points to no-gods. > > Third, those who demand that the lack of evidence FOR the existence of gods…requires that the default position must be be no-gods. > > In all those cases, by the way…we have a de facto presumption of no-gods. > > Those people who insist on being called agnostics (without qualifiers) seem not to claim to have a belief in no-god; do not feel the evidence points in either direction…and certainly not enough to suggest that a lack of evidence for the existence of gods means the default must be no-gods. > > By that standard…I am an agnostic…not an atheist. So why all this nonsense of insisting that agnostics are atheists by default. This is why people like me hate agonostics. You don’t think “the evidence points in either direction”. What does that even mean? There is no, and can be no, evidence for the absence of God, there is just absence of evidence. Answer me this: are you agnostic towards invisible cars? Do you look for them when you cross the street? Do you disparage those who work under the assumption that there are no invisible cars because they do so without evidence? Is the default position that there are no invisible cars, or are both possibilities equally likely? ---
**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 14, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/217 "2010-02-14T17:49:54Z")
There’s no real reason to hate 'em, Dan. They’ve just got a fundamental ignorance of epistemology and logic; they don’t understand how the burden of proof works or what the null hypothesis is or how that works either. Where a theist will respond to logic and epistemology by saying that they don’t need them because they have faith, some atheists who don’t understand the logical issues involved will instead cleave to some sort of position that they view as intellectually neutral. Then again, there are also atheists who want to talk down to both theists and most other atheists, so they disregard logic and epistemology and act as if they’re the only rational ones on the planet because they don’t believe in any god or gods, but they don’t believe for the right reasons! :rolleyes: ~shrugs~ ---
**Author:** ![Saganist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Saganist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saganist)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/218 "2010-02-14T18:07:09Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Not sure where you are going with this, but there most assuredly is a huge difference between “I do not believe X” and “I believe not X!” > > The former is a reactive statement…the later is pro-active. > > The former is an assertion of what one does not “believe”…and says nothing about what else the person does “not believe”…or what else the person does “believe.”…and that is a significant difference. Yes, I do understand there is actually a difference between the two statements. And I still maintain it is mostly trivial, especially with the case of the existence of objects that don’t manifest in reality. I mean, assuming you are aware that my use of the belief means nothing more than my current best guess, what major difference is there between saying “I don’t believe there are gods” and “I believe there are no gods”? I cannot think of a single criteria you could apply that would separate people who say the first one from people who say the second. As I said before, _nobody_ thinks a second thought when I say “I believe there are no pink unicorns on Moon” because they realize the reactive and pro-active statements have literally no practical difference. So why the blatant double standard when it comes to God when they is an equal amount of evidence pointing to his/her/their existence? You should be supporting me on this since you have stated previously that atheists do actually have a positive negative belief in the existence of God. > [@Fantome](#): > > It would make debating the claims you made mush easier if you did, since you make similar claims again in your above post and I’ll just have to repeat my replies again rather than you responding to the ones I already made. I mean I didn’t break your post down into sentences and answer each one but I think I covered the main topics. For example, it should have been clear that I was not suggesting that when you are unsure about something you have a “little belief” in the opposite hypothesis. But if you still take issue with statements I’ve made or are unclear on something I said, I will respond in more depth. But regardless, I think I’ll be stepping out of this thread if no ones responds further since I pretty much agree with what everyone is saying with the possible exception of Frank. Really I just want to point to the excellent post 206 by **DanBlather** as the best summary of my position. ---
**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 14, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/219 "2010-02-14T18:09:58Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > This is why people like me hate agonostics. I really do not care why you “hate” agonostics or agnostics, Dan. I suspect it is because you are irrational. But you really do not ever need a reason to hate anyone. Just “hate” if it makes you feel good. > [@](#): > > You don’t think “the evidence points in either direction”. What does that even mean? It means exactly what the words convey. It means “I do not think the evidence points in the direction that there are gods…and I do not think the evidence points in the direction there are no gods." > [@](#): > > There is no, and can be no, evidence for the absence of God, there is just absence of evidence. Wow…finally an atheist who sees this. That is terrific. But there are many atheists in this forum who constantly tell me “the absence of evidence” IS EVIDENCE for the absence of gods. I keep saying that the absence of evidence of gods is NOT truly evidence that there are no gods…but they keep telling me I am wrong. I wish you had been around when that was happening so that you could have explained to them that I was right. > [@](#): > > Answer me this: are you agnostic towards invisible cars? No. > [@](#): > > Do you look for them when you cross the street? No…I just look for cars in general. And trucks and buses. And when I am in New York City…for bicycles. They are the real menace in the Big Apple. > [@](#): > > Do you disparage those who work under the assumption that there are no invisible cars because they do so without evidence? Dan, you may find this hard to accept, but I honestly do not know anybody who has ever said to me that he/she “works under the assumption that there are no invisible cars”…so I really cannot answer this question. If someone suggested they were working under that assumption, though, I would just assume the person to be atheist trying to make one of those silly atheistic arguments….and laugh it off. > [@](#): > > Is the default position that there are no invisible cars, or are both possibilities equally likely? The “default position” for me, Dan…is that another atheist is trying to make a point that cannot be made. In the question of “What accounts for “existence?” however, I sorta take the view held by people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan…that we really do not know—that there is no reason to rule gods in (for them to be necessary) nor to rule them out (for them to be impossible). I hope I covered everything. ---
**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 14, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/220 "2010-02-14T18:32:12Z")
> [@iophobon](#): > > Yes, I do understand there is actually a difference between the two statements. And I still maintain it is mostly trivial, especially with the case of the existence of objects that don’t manifest in reality. I mean, assuming you are aware that my use of the belief means nothing more than my current best guess, what major difference is there between saying “I don’t believe there are gods” and “I believe there are no gods”? I cannot think of a single criteria you could apply that would separate people who say the first one from people who say the second. Well, I can…with no problem at all. If a person says, “I do not believe there are gods” (which I often say)…that ends it. As atheists who profess to be soft atheists often point out, no “belief” has been stated. On the other hand, a person who says, “I believe there are no gods” that person IS asserting a “belief.” That is what theists do…make a guess about the unknown and call it a “belief.” The atheists who do that…are just making a guess (asserting a “belief”) in the opposite direction. Not sure why you think that is a trivial distinction. If it were trivial…why do you suppose soft atheists go through the contortions of defending that segment of their position with such fervor? The secondary item that develops is that it can reasonably be argued that atheists who assert “I believe there are no gods”…end up assuming the same “burden of proof” they demand of theists who assert, “I believe there is a god.” Both are pro-active assertions…and as such, assume a burden of proof. > [@](#): > > You should be supporting me on this since you have stated previously that atheists do actually have a positive negative belief in the existence of God. Yup, that is a guess I made…but I think I’ve been told by a moderator that I am not allowed to make that kind of guess…so I am on thin ice here. Let’s see what I can do with the implied question here: Even if I were to guess that most atheists actually do “believe” there are no gods…I freely acknowledge there are many atheists who claim they go no further than “I simply do not have a belief in gods.” In fact, they even suggest that because I merely have a lack of belief in gods…I AM BY DEFINITION an atheist. I, on the other hand, have suggested that simply because I DO NOT believe there ARE NO GODS…does not make me a theist…and the fact that I do not believe there ARE gods does not make me an atheist. The difference IS significant…at least in my estimation…and in the estimation of many, many debating atheists in this forum and others. I’m not trying to be a wise-ass here, iophobon. I am simply dealing with arguments put forth by atheists who obviously see the difference between the two to be significant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=12)