# 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:** 18
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/341 "2010-02-15T21:19:43Z")
I honestly have no idea what any of that has to do with what I was asking. You discount other concepts because they aren’t “the question with which you’re working”? What does that even mean? The question was what is the difference between them, how are they different in a way that relates to the likelyhood of their existence? That’s the question with which you’re working. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/342 "2010-02-15T21:24:21Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Finish the following sentence: “The existence of invisible pink unicorns is so silly that they should only be “considered” by way of going along with a joke, whereas the existence of an all-powerful sentient being that created the universe is plausible enough that dismissing it off-hand is the height of arrogance, _and here’s why:_” …because a god, sans any unnecessary attributes, would, by being able to operate outside our laws of science, offer a plausible way that everything was created and set in motion. Now, this god may well be a pink unicorn, or he may be a trillion trillion trillion other things. But his pinkness or unicornness or anything-elseness are beside the point. They are but inane distractions conjured up by those who wish the ridicule even the possibility of their being a Prime Mover. Even though they have no better answer. Oops. I thought that question was to me. Didn’t mean to butt in. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/343 "2010-02-15T21:50:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > …because a god, sans any unnecessary attributes, would, by being able to operate outside our laws of science, offer a plausible way that everything was created and set in motion. > > Now, this god may well be a pink unicorn, or he may be a trillion trillion trillion other things. But his pinkness or unicornness or anything-elseness are beside the point. They are but inane distractions conjured up by those who wish the ridicule even the possibility of their being a Prime Mover. Even though they have no better answer. > Oops. I thought that question was to me. Didn’t mean to butt in. I hope you realize the purpose of the question isn’t to imply that god is like a pink unicorn, the only point is that they share key attributes that are relevant to the question at hand. I always try to come up with things that sound as non-silly as possible, but given the required attributes it’s not easy. Neither is falsifiable in any way, and neither is necessary to explain anything about anything. And that’s why your answer falls a bit flat. If it was truly the case that we had no other possible explanations to how things were set in motion, then belief in god might have some merit. But we do have better answers. Something as simple as “the universe has always existed in some form or another” is a better answer simply by virtue of cutting the middle-man. There just aren’t any real mysteries left. I wish there were, to be honest. But props for actually trying to answer the question, seriously. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/344 "2010-02-15T21:59:56Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I hope you realize the purpose of the question isn’t to imply that god is like a pink unicorn, the only point is that they share key attributes that are relevant to the question at hand. I always try to come up with things that sound as non-silly as possible, but given the required attributes it’s not easy. Neither is falsifiable in any way, and neither is necessary to explain anything about anything. > > And that’s why your answer falls a bit flat. If it was truly the case that we had no other possible explanations to how things were set in motion, then belief in god might have some merit. But we do have better answers. Something as simple as “the universe has always existed in some form or another” is a better answer simply by virtue of cutting the middle-man. There just aren’t any real mysteries left. I wish there were, to be honest. > > But props for actually trying to answer the question, seriously. Thanks. But to be honest, an eternal universe seems to me to be even more far fetched. We can point to nothing else that we know is eternal to posit that such a thing is even possible. And then we’re still stuck with why did all the stuff exist to begin with? So we have 1) zero examples of things we know to be eternal and 2) a major tenet of science, that has steered all scientific discovery that says that everything has a cause. Sorry, but I find a god a much simpler, more likely possibility. I’d say to each his own at that point. But one side feels the need to ridicule and belittle theists (I’m not talking about religionists). Some atheists are so adamant that they are correct that they resemble the very YEC they laugh at. ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/345 "2010-02-15T22:09:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks. But to be honest, an eternal universe seems to me to be even more far fetched. We can point to nothing else that we know is eternal to posit that such a thing is even possible. And then we’re still stuck with why did all the stuff exist to begin with? So we have 1) zero examples of things we know to be eternal and 2) a major tenet of science, that has steered all scientific discovery that says that everything has a cause. Sorry, but I find a god a much simpler, more likely possibility. > > I’d say to each his own at that point. But one side feels the need to ridicule and belittle theists (I’m not talking about religionists). Some atheists are so adamant that they are correct that they resemble the very YEC they laugh at. You find an eternal god more plausible than an eternal universe, although we can find the universe by merely opening our eyes, and no evidence for such a god(or any god) exists, afaict? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/346 "2010-02-15T22:16:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You find an eternal god more plausible than an eternal universe, although we can find the universe by merely opening our eyes, and no evidence for such a god(or any god) exists, afaict? Yes. Partly because en eternal universe still leaves questions unanswered. And I think that there IS some evidence for god: logic. (Prime Mover) ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/347 "2010-02-15T22:24:11Z")
Hmm, this thread may have left me behind, but I’ll respond anyway. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > If you say so…but for me, when in a discussion of religion, the word “belief” is most often used by theists and atheists to disguise a wild, blind guess. I often claim I do not have beliefs…because I refuse to disguise the guesses, speculations, approximations I make…and call them that rather than “beliefs.” I am sure you realize that different people mean different things when the say “I believe…x…” > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I thought I was fairly clear in what I was arguing. > > Anyone suggesting there is no “belief” involved in atheism is disingenuous in the extreme…because many atheists definitely mention that they “believe there are no gods.” Not all…but some. And quite honestly, outside of debate on the Internet, almost all the atheists I know do so! Almost the only atheists I know who insist they are merely “not believing in gods” as opposed to pro-actively “believing there are no gods”…are debating atheists. And quite honestly, from listening to their arguments, I suspect they are not being completely truthful. I think they do BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS. That IS a belief. In fact, I suspect EVERY person who identifies him/herself as an atheist has a belief there are no gods. > > Lots of “believing” going on there! Look at these two things you said, in the same post (order reversed to clarify my point). You think “belief” means “wild, blind guess”, to the degree that you consider it an insult and refuse to apply it to yourself, instead choosing to use other terms that describe how you came to have your beliefs instead. And then you very firmly apply this word, insulting connotations and all, to atheists, refusing to accept that they too have methods by which they arrived at their beliefs. In other words, you are using a deliberate double standard that is as-good-as-explicitly crafted to sling insulting mistrepresentations at atheists, falsely claiming their opinion on dieties is a “wild, blind guess”. And you wonder why you’re not going over well. Let us be **very, very clear**. You have exactly the same amount of belief in the absence of god as most atheists, including myself. We **all** recognize that noninterventionist and deceiver gods can’t be disproven. You’re the same as us - the main difference being that we adopt the standard convention that imaginary things with no evidence for them can be described as not existing, despite the fact one cannot actually _prove_ that Sauron, Santa, and god#11231 don’t have some analogue in some inaccessible corner of reality. Well, that and we regognize that internal contradictions _do_ count as a disproof. So while gods may exist, maybe, God certainly doesn’t (for most descriptions of the beast). I’m not sure if you agree with this or not. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I no more accept that than I would “if you have the property of not believing there are no gods, then you are a theist or deist.[ > > Granted it IS used in some dictionaries…but often with qualification. And it is a definition that I wish lexicographers would re-think. > > I do not believe in gods…and I am not an atheist. I do not believe there are no gods…and I am not a theist or deist. I don’t much care what you would accept, and neither do the dictionaries. You’re an atheist - by the definition atheists use to describe themselves. You’re one of us. Welcome to the “flock”! There are other definitions of “atheist” that you don’t meet, of course. I don’t meet some of them either! But under the definition that we’re using around here, you and I are borthers in arms. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Whatever! I have defined my personal agnosticism several times. Accept it or reject it as you see fit. But if you are suggesting that by merit of my not believing in gods, I must accept that I am an atheist…I am telling you that is not going to happen. And the arguments for why you people suppose this must be…have been faulty. I accept that both you and I agnostics, and you and I are both atheists, and neither of us is a theist. And if you can’t accept that, well, that’s your problem. You can deny that you’re a mammal too if you like, for all the good it’ll do you. ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/348 "2010-02-15T22:31:06Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I honestly have no idea what any of that has to do with what I was asking. You discount other concepts because they aren’t “the question with which you’re working”? What does that even mean? The question was what is the difference between them, how are they different in a way that relates to the likelyhood of their existence? That’s the question with which you’re working. I’m sorry you are having so much trouble with this, Gustav. But I have already explained why they are different…and you cannot see that, I just don’t know what to say. They are different in my mind…and I have given you my reasons. ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/349 "2010-02-15T22:33:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Thanks. But to be honest, an eternal universe seems to me to be even more far fetched. We can point to nothing else that we know is eternal to posit that such a thing is even possible. And then we’re still stuck with why did all the stuff exist to begin with? So we have 1) zero examples of things we know to be eternal and 2) a major tenet of science, that has steered all scientific discovery that says that everything has a cause. Sorry, but I find a god a much simpler, more likely possibility. > [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. Partly because en eternal universe still leaves questions unanswered. And I think that there IS some evidence for god: logic. (Prime Mover) The logic for this is bad, though, because either god also needs a prime mover, or it is not the case that everything needs a prime mover, in which case the universe doesn’t necessarily need one either. The loophope one opens to admit a god is large enough to admit the universe too (especially one as small and simple as the scientifically supported first-moment bangiverse). And I seriously have a hard time understanding how people can make the argument that a sentient, information-packed planning creator god-that-lacks-a-cause is simpler than a nonsentient homogenous space-time-energy-blob-that-lacks-a-cause. I mean, if knowledge and sentience weren’t complexity, we could fit computer programs of any size on a floppy disk, and a single-byte program would be a sentient AI. ---
**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 15, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/350 "2010-02-15T22:59:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I don’t much care what you would accept, and neither do the dictionaries. You’re an atheist - by the definition atheists use to describe themselves. You’re one of us. Welcome to the “flock”! No I am not. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: “one who believes that there is no deity.” > **[Definition of ATHEIST](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)** > > a person who does not believe in the existence of God or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition Websters Dictionary: “a person who believes that there is no God.” > **[Atheist Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary](https://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist)** > > Atheist definition: A person who believes that there is no God. Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist” [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD&topic=believers-and-non-believers](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD&topic=believers-and-non-believers) Cambridge Online Dictionary: “someone who believes that God does not exist “ [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=atheist\*1+0&dict=A](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=atheist*1+0&dict=A) One look Dictionary: “ (n.) A godless person.  (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. [http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheist](http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheist) > [@](#): > > There are other definitions of “atheist” that you don’t meet, of course. I don’t meet some of them either! But under the definition that we’re using around here, you and I are borthers in arms. If this site wants to twist the meaning of the word in order to include agnostics in their ranks…I can understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree to it. I’ll use the definitions given in the dictionaries I cited…and according to them, I am not an atheist. Try not to feel too bad about that, Begbert. Maybe you can get some theists to become “borthers” in arms with you! > [@](#): > > I accept that both you and I agnostics… Good. If you are saying that you do not know if gods exist or not…that is fine with me. And of course, I do not know if gods exist or not. > [@](#): > > … and you and I are both atheists, and neither of us is a theist. Well neither of us are theists…but actually (and I thought I mentioned this before)…I am not an atheist. > [@](#): > > And if you can’t accept that, well, that’s your problem. No problem at all. In fact, the elimination of a problem. It would be a problem if I did accept it. > [@](#): > > You can deny that you’re a mammal too if you like, for all the good it’ll do you. Why would I do that? I am a mammal. I just am not an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/351 "2010-02-15T23:48:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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?” Yes. Of course they _can_ be, but not at this time. I say “of course” because what way other than via “natural forces” could the cosmos and everything in it have possibly been created? All that is, is of nature. We just don’t understand all of nature, and most likely never will. I’ll remind you that there is no such thing as the “supernatural” other than as a concept–a place-holder word for anything natural that has yet to be understood. Ghosts, vampires, telekinesis, ESP, even Gods and the forces of the Bermuda Triangle… if any of these things are real, then they are natural–but merely unexplainable at this time. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/352 "2010-02-16T00:11:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Actually positing something like (what I believe to be) your concept of God has _less_ than no value in explaining anything because it is a meaningless construct. It only serves to muck-up any logical discussion of a straightforward, yet as yet unexplained, phenomenon (Cosmo-genesis). It is more than enough to simply say, “We just don’t know how all This came into Being.” Suggestions that it was an Abrahamic God, a Flying Teapot or an Invisible Car that created the Cosmos are all equally useless because they are equally nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/353 "2010-02-16T00:36:11Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > As I said about the invisible cars; flying spaghetti monsters; and cpa’s working on one of the moons of Saturn….I am willing to “consider” almost anything anyone wants to propose…in the spirit of fun and games—including “invisible all-powerful entities that can do anything.” That seems to make your position quite clear. It appears to me that in the above quoted paragraph you are grouping _“invisible all-powerful entities that can do anything”_ with _“invisible cars; flying spaghetti monsters; and cpa’s working on one of the moons of Saturn”_ as concepts only worthy of being discussed for “fun and games”. You have said that you consider the former items to be absurd fallacies invented by atheists to provoke (I am freely paraphrasing there). I take it that you find the latter to be as absurd and unlikely as you do the former. If this is so, then why is there any more reason to give consideration to whether God exists or not than there is to whether, for example, a FSM exists or not? Are they not both effectively pointless dichotomies to consider? Are you not then every bit as much of an atheist as you are an a-FSM-ist? ---
**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 16, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/354 "2010-02-16T00:47:44Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > No I am not. > > Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: “one who believes that there is no deity.” > > [ATHEIST Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist) > > Websters Dictionary: “a person who believes that there is no God.” > > [Atheist Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary](http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist) > > Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist” > > [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD&topic=believers-and-non-believers](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD&topic=believers-and-non-believers) > > Cambridge Online Dictionary: “someone who believes that God does not exist “ > > [http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=atheist\*1+0&dict=A](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=atheist*1+0&dict=A) > > One look Dictionary: “ (n.) A godless person. >  (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. > > [http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheist](http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Atheist) > If this site wants to twist the meaning of the word in order to include agnostics in their ranks…I can understand why. But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree to it. > > I’ll use the definitions given in the dictionaries I cited…and according to them, I am not an atheist. > > Try not to feel too bad about that, Begbert. Maybe you can get some theists to become “borthers” in arms with you! Oh no I made a typo I must be wrong. :rolleyes: Two of those definitions you give set ‘atheist’ in opposition to belief in “God” - that’s the single specific Christian diety. These definitions are obviously limited and incorrect. (Amusingly, cambridge also seems to be contradicting itself.) One other is the _correct_ definition - it includes the godless persons - whether they assert or believe or not. So you’re down to only 40% of your _own_ cites supporting your stated belief in what the term means. 20%, if you realize that yourdictionary includes “godlessness” in the definition of “atheism” - or isn’t an atheist one whose beliefs qualify as atheism? (I’ll let you keep that remaining 20%, despite the fact that it’s the self-contradictory cambridge cite.) Curious about what would happen if one didn’t cherry-pick their cites, I did a google on “athesm definition”. After the first three links things got a little garbled, but here are the first three in order (the second required a little digging to get to the actual definition.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html) What is atheism?" Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings. Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism.” [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism&defid=4156163](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism&defid=4156163) 39. Atheism 10 up, 20 down The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. \*His chosen religion was atheism because he didn’t believe in any deities.\*by TheInCircuit Aug 4, 2009 share this 1. atheism 1634 up, 456 down Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. The prefix A means “without” or “not”, so Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a religion, just like theism is not a religion. Atheists are usually quite fond of life, since it is the only one we have.Theists if you think about it, need a god to make their existance make sense and to make them respect life. _That dog is an atheist. A new-born baby is an atheist. Most of the smartest people in the world are atheists. Coincidence?_ by Nycto Achluo Mar 21, 2004 share this 2. Atheism 740 up, 199 down There are two kinds of atheism: strong (positive) atheism and weak (negative) atheism. The difference between these two is basically that a weak atheist doesn’t believe in God, while a strong atheist believes in no God. Weak atheism is essentially the same as agnosticism]. It states that since we have no proof of a God, we cannot know for sure that one exists. Strong atheism states that since we live in a scientific world where the existence of things is determined solely by their observability, we cannot assume anything unobservable to exist. God isn’t observable, therefore he doesn’t exist (cf. Occam’s Razor). This doesn’t mean that an atheist wouldn’t WANT to believe in God, it merely means that he has no REASON to believe in it/him. Strong atheists often question the special treatment weak atheists – and theists – give to religion. If they believe that the tooth fairy or Santa Claus do not exist, why are they willing to give God a benefit of the doubt? Strong atheism is often equated with religion since it takes a strong stance on the issue. This is, however, fallacious. Religion is not based on rationality, and strong atheists value rationality over fantasy. Therefore atheism is not parallel with religion. _I do not follow atheism. I merely concur with it._ by Servant Of Progress Oct 21, 2004 share this 100% of these agree with the way we use the term around here, and give much more nuanced and accurate definitions than the abbreviated dictionary references you gave. Your pretense that the definition of theism as non-theism is something we made up here at the Straight Dope to “twist” the word is _demonstrably_ false. Additionally, Wiki and UrbanDictionary draw their definitions from the populace, and so can be reasonably be expected to be a more accurate poll of modern usage - which is not irrelevent to this discussion. The first definition in UrbanDictionary has very few votes either way and is certainly less ‘peer reviewed’ than the much better definitions that follow it, but it’s interesting nonetheless, in that it at first glance might appear to match your (incorrect) definition of all atheists as strong atheists. But, look at the quote: “His chosen religion was atheism because he didn’t believe in any deities.” Putting aside the headslap of explicitly calling mere disbelief a religion, this guy clearly _equates_ disbelief and lack of belief. This is actually a reflection of the way most people thing approach the whole agnosticism thing: they don’t separate the categories of ‘lack of belief in an assertion’ and ‘belief that the assertion is false’. This sort of sloppiness clearly has effected your quoted dictionary definitions too - though you already know they’re being sloppy when they persist in using “God” instead of “god”. So yeah. You can try and redefine the word to exclude its popularly accepted definition, but that’s not going to impress anyone. You. Are. An. Atheist. We can only hope that one day the stigma against atheism will lessen sufficiently that you will be able to bring yourself to admit that the definition is indeed broad enough to include yourself. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > No problem at all. In fact, the elimination of a problem. It would be a problem if I did accept it. Why? You have a problem with using words as they’re _used_? > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Why would I do that? I am a mammal. I just am not an atheist. You’re a mammal _and_ an atheist, and in denail to boot. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/355 "2010-02-16T01:01:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Hmm, this thread may have left me behind, but I’ll respond anyway. > > Look at these two things you said, in the same post (order reversed to clarify my point). You think “belief” means “wild, blind guess”, to the degree that you consider it an insult and refuse to apply it to yourself, instead choosing to use other terms that describe how you came to have your beliefs instead. And then you very firmly apply this word, insulting connotations and all, to atheists, refusing to accept that they too have methods by which they arrived at their beliefs. In other words, you are using a deliberate double standard that is as-good-as-explicitly crafted to sling insulting mistrepresentations at atheists, falsely claiming their opinion on dieties is a “wild, blind guess”. > > And you wonder why you’re not going over well. > > Let us be **very, very clear**. You have exactly the same amount of belief in the absence of god as most atheists, including myself. We **all** recognize that noninterventionist and deceiver gods can’t be disproven. You’re the same as us - the main difference being that we adopt the standard convention that imaginary things with no evidence for them can be described as not existing, despite the fact one cannot actually _prove_ that Sauron, Santa, and god#11231 don’t have some analogue in some inaccessible corner of reality. > > Well, that and we regognize that internal contradictions _do_ count as a disproof. So while gods may exist, maybe, God certainly doesn’t (for most descriptions of the beast). I’m not sure if you agree with this or not. > > I don’t much care what you would accept, and neither do the dictionaries. You’re an atheist - by the definition atheists use to describe themselves. You’re one of us. Welcome to the “flock”! > > There are other definitions of “atheist” that you don’t meet, of course. I don’t meet some of them either! But under the definition that we’re using around here, you and I are borthers in arms. > > I accept that both you and I agnostics, and you and I are both atheists, and neither of us is a theist. And if you can’t accept that, well, that’s your problem. You can deny that you’re a mammal too if you like, for all the good it’ll do you. I gotta ask: what’s your beef. Why would insist someone is an atheist when he tells you flat out—repeatedly—that he is not? Then you admit at the end he really IS an agnostic. But he’s really an atheist, too. You’re attempting to equate those words, but they do not mean the same thing. They are similar in that they both do not allow for theism. That’s it. Why are you being so insistent that he is what he tells you he is not? ---
**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 16, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/356 "2010-02-16T01:07:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I gotta ask: what’s your beef. Why would insist someone is an atheist when he tells you flat out—repeatedly—that he is not? Then you admit at the end he really IS an agnostic. But he’s really an atheist, too. You’re attempting to equate those words, but they do not mean the same thing. They are similar in that they both do not allow for theism. That’s it. Why are you being so insistent that he is what he tells you he is not? 1. Because he’s wrong. Fighting ignorance and all that. 2. he’s not just denying that he’s an atheist, he’s also slandering atheists to do it. Explictly. Atheism is not a “wild, blind guess” as he _insists_ it is, and I don’t take kindly to him saying so. It’s argumentively and morally corrupt when theists do it to try to drag atheism down to their level (“Atheism is a religion!”), and the fact that he isn’t a theist doesn’t make it any less wrong when he makes the exact same argument. ETA: And I don’t “admit” he’s agnostic - he is an agnostic. By _either_ the strict “can’t be known” definition or the sloppy “ain’t sure which” definition. (I think he’s using the former definition, but I’m not certain. It doesn’t really matter either way since every ‘strong’ agnostic is a ‘weak’ agnostic too. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/357 "2010-02-16T01:07:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If one wants to have a serious discussion about this he should assume that this god is as stripped down a god as possible. No flowing robes, no unicycle, no pinkness, no unicornness, no dragonness, no spaghettiness, etc., etc, etc.. By adding those attributes your asking someone to defend what they do not propose or believe. Why go only halfway? To have an even _more_ serious discussion about this shouldn’t we strip God down even further? We could also do away with the omniscience, omni-benevolence, omnipotence, and the idea that God could be anything other than a concept that an individual holds and is meaningful only to himself. IMO, this does nothing to diminish the power, truth, and necessity of God–it is truly a very important and real thing to the individual, but just a concept to everyone else. To discuss God as anything other than that would only be needlessly building him back up again, and therefore, just as fanciful as discussing him having flowing robes and unicorn-ness. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/358 "2010-02-16T01:14:59Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > As to whether or not gods exist…I am convinced that it is “plausible” enough to at least be considered a possibility…and I do not see a reason to make a guess that they do not exist. But _why_ is it plausible enough to be considered a possibility? Why is it any more plausible than considering the existence of the FSM? _That_, I believe, is the question that atheists are implicitly asking when they speak of Invisible Pink Unicorns and FSMs, and that is why it is not silly or fatuous at all for them to do so. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/359 "2010-02-16T01:19:22Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > There is no, and can be no, evidence for the absence of God, there is just absence of evidence. That’s absolutely not true. Of course there can be evidence that no God exists. And in fact, there’s sufficient evidence to conclude just that. It’s like if I claim that there is a living, fire-breathing, 100-foot-long dragon in Times Square. Of course there can be (and is) evidence that that’s not true. Same with God. Why do people insist on dragging out these same moth-eaten, knee-jerk arguments about the impossibility of any evidence that God ain’t? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/360 "2010-02-16T01:20:37Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > The logic for this is bad, though, because either god also needs a prime mover, or it is not the case that everything needs a prime mover, in which case the universe doesn’t necessarily need one either. Nope. Your logic is what is flawed. Your not accepting that a defining characteristic of a Creator God is that he would not need to be caused. THAT is the point! > [@begbert2](#): > > The loophope one opens to admit a god is large enough to admit the universe too (especially one as small and simple as the scientifically supported first-moment bangiverse). Oh really? Well, I’ll have to ask you for a cite for that “scientifically supported first-moment bangiverse”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=19)