# 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:** 13
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/241 "2010-02-14T20:35:22Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > We do not know the nature of reality or existence. Not sure what that has to do with God though. There is no reason to think that the mechanism by which the universe was created has any God-like properties. Now if you just want to say that the word God is the same as the word meaning the the mechanism by which the universe was created, you are certainly free to do so; but redefining words makes it difficult to communicate with other people. > > If all you want to say is that we don’t know how the universe was created, just say it. I think most people agree. Okay…consider it said. Fact is, I do not even know if it was “created.” Now…since we do not know…why are you eliminating the possibility there are gods involved in how it was created? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/242 "2010-02-14T20:42:58Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > No, no, no, Gustav…you misunderstood what I was asking for. > > I was asking for the some of the staggering amount of evidence that there are no gods. > > Not a one of these things is evidence that there are no gods. > > “100% incontrovertible proof” that no gods are possible??? > > They are not even evidence that there are no gods. > > They do not even go to the question of “are there no gods.” > > This is all a variation on the theme, “There is no evidence that gods exist…and no necessity for them to exist to explain anything.” > > That is not evidence they do not exist. > > If this is the best that you can come up with, Gustav, I think I will stick with the guy who said there is absolutely no evidence that there are no gods. What the hell is wrong with “If you posit that there are gods, _you_ are obligated to come up with evidence that they exist, because _you_ are the one making one hellacious and totally illogical claim. I, on the other hand, do not have to waste my time to provide jack, because I hold the default position.” If you are having a problem understanding that, though there are two sides to consider, the two sides are nowhere near equal, then deal with it-quit trying to create a false equivalency where none exists just because you can’t deal with reality. ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/243 "2010-02-14T20:43:17Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Okay…consider it said. > > Fact is, I do not even know if it was “created.” > > Now…since we do not know…why are you eliminating the possibility there are gods involved in how it was created? I don’t, I just operate under the assumption that there weren’t because there is zero evidence for it. Presumably the same reason you do not look for invisible cars before crossing the street. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/244 "2010-02-14T20:44:31Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Okay…consider it said. > > Fact is, I do not even know if it was “created.” > > Now…since we do not know…why are you eliminating the possibility there are gods involved in how it was created? Give a good reason to waste time considering this totally unsubstantiated possibility? ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/245 "2010-02-14T20:47:12Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Five minute edit window? Damn nazi mods! > > Fake fake edit: Say I flip a coin 10,000 times and it comes up heads 10,000 times. One person says “the next flip will come up heads” and the other says “the next flip will come up tails”. Are both sides basically just guessing? Technically it’s true, but I’m sure you can appreciate that’s pretty misleading. Certainly a lot more so than the whole “don’t not believe there isn’t not a lack of god” thing. But that’s because you know _a priori_ that there are two equal possibilities. That is not true in the case of God, as we have no _a priori_ knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Keweenaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/da6949/32.png) [@Keweenaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keweenaw)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/246 "2010-02-14T20:53:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What the hell is wrong with “If you posit that there are gods, _you_ are obligated to come up with evidence that they exist, because _you_ are the one making one hellacious and totally illogical claim. I, on the other hand, do not have to waste my time to provide jack, because I hold the default position.” > If you are having a problem understanding that, though there are two sides to consider, the two sides are nowhere near equal, then deal with it-quit trying to create a false equivalency where none exists just because you can’t deal with reality. Your right, they are not equal. Your view is the one that conflicts with the majority of people currently alive, and with one of the foundations of human culture for billions of people for thousands of years. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/247 "2010-02-14T20:54:41Z")
When come back, bring more than the bandwagon fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/248 "2010-02-14T20:54:53Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Your right, they are not equal. Your view is the one that conflicts with the majority of people currently alive, and with one of the foundations of human culture for billions of people for thousands of years. If only we could vote on reality. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/249 "2010-02-14T20:57:06Z")
> [@Keweenaw](#): > > Your right, they are not equal. Your view is the one that conflicts with the majority of people currently alive, and with one of the foundations of human culture for billions of people for thousands of years. Is it your position then that there are thousands of different gods out there? ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/250 "2010-02-14T21:44:38Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What the hell is wrong with “If you posit that there are gods, _you_ are obligated to come up with evidence that they exist, because _you_ are the one making one hellacious and totally illogical claim. I, on the other hand, do not have to waste my time to provide jack, because I hold the default position.” > If you are having a problem understanding that, though there are two sides to consider, the two sides are nowhere near equal, then deal with it-quit trying to create a false equivalency where none exists just because you can’t deal with reality. The notion that you hold the default position is one of convenience to you. It is gratuitous. The default position is “I do not know what “this” is all about…I do not know if there are gods or if there are no gods.” The fact that you atheists want the default position to be “no gods” and the theists want the default position to be “gods” is absurd. The fact that you think the evidence for “no gods” is so much greater than for “gods” is laughable considering the only “evidence” (if you stretch the meaning of that word) for “no gods” is…there is no evidence for “gods.” You are the one not capable of dealing with reality, Czarcasm…not I. ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/251 "2010-02-14T21:47:01Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The notion that you hold the default position is one of convenience to you. It is gratuitous. > > The default position is “I do not know what “this” is all about…I do not know if there are gods or if there are no gods.” And your default position on invisible cars is what? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/252 "2010-02-14T21:52:45Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The fact that you think the evidence for “no gods” is so much greater than for “gods” is laughable considering the only “evidence” (if you stretch the meaning of that word) for “no gods” is…there is no evidence for “gods.” > > You are the one not capable of dealing with reality, Czarcasm…not I. Cite where I have made this claim. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/253 "2010-02-14T21:54:21Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > That’s only the first step to you because of your cultural bias. The first step could just as well be to animism, or to thinking that man is God, or that the earth is conscious entity, or that we are all part of a computer simulation, or an infinite number of other things. You misunderstand me. Maybe I was as clear as I could have been. The initial spit in the decision tree is: “can all of the earth and life and their beginnings be explained by natural forces, or do you think something from another realm has played a role?” The former points to atheism, the latter to theism. At this juncture, the flavor or nature of god(s) doesn’t matter. Subsequent steps point you toward animism, myriad polytheisms, Christianity, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/254 "2010-02-14T21:56:56Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The default position is "I do not know what “this” is all about…I do not know if there are gods or if there are no gods. Considering that you are asking for evidence against a position for which there is no evidence whatsoever, I have to ask: Do you know anything at all, or is your whole life one big free-for-all where the possibility of anything being true is always 50/50? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/255 "2010-02-14T21:59:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You misunderstand me. Maybe I was as clear as I could have been. The initial spit in the decision tree is: “can all of the earth and life and their beginnings be explained by natural forces, or do you think something from another realm has played a role?” The former points to atheism, the latter to theism. At this juncture, the flavor or nature of god(s) doesn’t matter. Subsequent steps point you toward animism, myriad polytheisms, Christianity, etc. Are you completely ignoring that large branch in the decision tree that says, “I don’t know yet what the explanation is, so I will try to find out.”? ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/256 "2010-02-14T22:01:48Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Do you really not see that there is no difference, other than cultural bias, to make a differentiation between working under the assumption that there are no invisible cars and the assumption that there is no God? There is no reason for people to tell you they work under the assumption there are no invisible cars, because no one thinks they exist. The reason people tell you they work under the assumption that there is no God, is because there _are_ people that think God exists. But just because someone _else_ believes something, does not change what the default position is, or change what label you apply to the person not holding the belief. My level of certainty regarding the existence of invisible cars and God is equivalent. I don’t go around denying invisible cars, because there is no need to. But I do talk about my thoughts on God when a thread like this opens up and someone makes an assertion that not believing in God is somehow different than not believing in any other thing for which there is no evidence. Here’s the thing, invisible cars have no value in explaining anything. A god that operates outside our laws does. We do not know what caused the Big Bang. One of the foundations of science is that everything haas a cause. That would include the BB. We can devise explanations like Brane Theory but that just pushes the starting point back. Now I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion about whether or not there is a Creator God, but to place the theory of God in the same category of the theory of invisible cars is just sloppy. One attempts to explain a hole in a pretty solid theory of how we got here, the other serves no purpose. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/257 "2010-02-14T22:02:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You misunderstand me. Maybe I was as clear as I could have been. The initial spit in the decision tree is: “can all of the earth and life and their beginnings be explained by natural forces, or do you think something from another realm has played a role?” The former points to atheism, the latter to theism. At this juncture, the flavor or nature of god(s) doesn’t matter. Subsequent steps point you toward animism, myriad polytheisms, Christianity, etc. No, I do not agree. You can argue natural and supernatural, but the concept of God is carries with it an enormous amount of cultural baggage and pre-conceived ideas. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/258 "2010-02-14T22:03:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Are you completely ignoring that large branch in the decision tree that says, “I don’t know yet what the explanation is, so I will try to find out.”? For the purpose of this discussion, I am. I think the agnostic stance is a pretty sensible one, but it’s the coin on edge, if you will. But yes, I was consciously omitting it for the purposes of parsing the distinctions I’ve been discussing. ---
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/259 "2010-02-14T22:08:55Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > No, I do not agree. You can argue natural and supernatural, but the concept of God is carries with it an enormous amount of cultural baggage and pre-conceived ideas. Now that is _your_ personal bias coming out. I know the word has enormous baggage. Proof of that is that you seem unable to discuss the concept of a Creator God without assuming I’m talking about a guy with a beard or flowing robes. I’m not talking about that God or any particular god, just an entity that 1) is able to operate outside the laws of the universe as we know them and 2) was able in some way, directly or indirectly, to cause something that has no cause in our realm. This has nothing to do with any religion, any particular god, and does not even mean that we were the reason for the creation. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/260 "2010-02-14T22:18:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > One of the foundations of science is that everything haas a cause. No, that’s one of the foundations of religious apologetics and Creationism (though God gets a free pass). > [@](#): > > We can devise explanations like Brane Theory but that just pushes the starting point back. And the God Theory doesn’t just push the starting point back? > [@](#): > > One attempts to explain a hole in a pretty solid theory of how we got here, the other serves no purpose. A pretty solid theory, eh? You’re using both the words _solid_ and _theory_ as loosely as can be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=14)