# 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:** 19
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/361 "2010-02-16T01:23:20Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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. After we understand everything, we will still be stuck with “what started it all”. And that thing will, by definition, not need to have been caused. ---
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/362 "2010-02-16T01:25:06Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > 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. No they’er not. Though for some reason you want them to be. Try thinking of god being none of the things you described. Just that which started everything off. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/363 "2010-02-16T01:36:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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! You’re not telling us why this Creator God gets a free pass from **your** requirement. I posted a snippet from the IronChariots wiki yesterday and you didn’t respond. > [@](#): > > **Why assume the first cause is god-like?** > > Even if we grant that a first cause exists, it makes no sense to assume that it is any kind of god, let alone Yahweh. The idea of an intelligent, universe-creating god “just existing” is **far** more difficult to explain than the universe itself “just existing”. Intelligence is one of the most complex things we are aware of in the universe. To assume a being who is so intelligent that it can design an entire universe, as well as micromanage the personal lives of billions of people on earth through prayer, would require an enormous amount of explanation. > > Christians try to avoid this issue by saying “God does not need a cause because He is outside of time.” This is a glib non-answer. If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the big bang. It need not have any special powers at all. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define “outside of time”. Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause. > > Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe? [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...gical\_argument](http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.p...gical_argument) How about answering the questions at the end? ---
**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, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/364 "2010-02-16T01:37:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 1. Because he’s wrong. Fighting ignorance and all that. Wrong about what? What he beleives regarding god or what he believes about the definition of “atheism”? If it’s the latter, aren’t you really arguing that all agnostics are weak atheists, making the word unnecessary? Do you not see a demarcation between atheism (weak) and agnosticism? > [@begbert2](#): > > 1. 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. I don’t see that as an insult. I see that as him trying very hard to re-explain things again and again using different words. And in the end, isn’t it really a guess, for everyone. Do you not make for the possibility, however infinitesimal, that you _may_ be wrong? > [@begbert2](#): > > 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. It’s an observable fact, by anyone of any stripe, that some strong atheists take a leap similar to that taken by the highly religious. We look at fundamentalists and say, "how can they be so hubristic? Don’t they understand that no man is perfect, they he is flawed, and he may be wrong? Well, those same questions can be asked of many strong atheists. That’s how I took it anyway. > [@begbert2](#): > > 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. So, he IS an agnostic now? Maybe I misunderstood you. I hope I did. That would make more sense. Let me just ask you, do you see a demarcation between what we mean when we say someone is an atheist and what we mean when we say someone is an agnostic? For what it’s worth, I don’t think he’s being argumentative at all. You seem to be considerably busier in that arena in your exchanges. ---
**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, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/365 "2010-02-16T01:40:49Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You’re not telling us why this Creator God gets a free pass from **your** requirement. I posted a snippet from the IronChariots wiki yesterday and you didn’t respond. Logic. at some point you have to have a Prime Mover. That is God. Look at that line I just wrote. The thinking moves from left to right, not right to left. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/366 "2010-02-16T01:45:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Logic. at some point you have to have a Prime Mover. That is God. You’re failing to explain why our prime mover gets a free pass. You said everything that exists must have a cause. Why everything “but one thing”? How about answering the questions at the end of the Iron Chariots quote I asked you to? > [@](#): > > Look at that line I just wrote. The thinking moves from left to right, not right to left. WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/367 "2010-02-16T01:58:12Z")
I think this argument keeps getting bogged down in whether the issue is resolvable or not. As in the atheist position does the pink unicorn and what not as a way of trying to argue the concept of god is no different from any other concept man has come up with that cant be resolved by empirical means. The agnostic answer really is ‘you might be right, it might be no different from a pink unicorn - but maybe it isnt’, rather than trying to definitely define how it is different - because if they could define its difference other than with ‘what its trying to answer’ they wouldnt need to be agnostic. They dont find the atheist position entirely convincing even if they cant come up with something better. Similarly faith doesnt work as an answer either, although generally they reject the more detailed theistic arguments, and more wonder about things like whether there is an afterlife or not. It might be more a case of _wanting_ some aspects of theism to be true even if they cant find the evidence particularly compelling that it is. In many ways it is not an inherently logical position developed from first principles, but more a rejection of common atheist or theist positions as complete, without feeling the obligation to offer something in return. Which is why this debate isnt much use at resolving the issue - the more you try to get agnostics to define their position in more detail on issues like what ‘god means’ to an agnostic, the more you’re missing the point of the position. Otara ---
**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, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/368 "2010-02-16T02:03:04Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You’re failing to explain why our prime mover gets a free pass. You said everything that exists must have a cause. Why everything “but one thing”? No. I did explain it in my reply to you. Please think about what I wrote, because it really does sum it up nicely > [@Fantome](#): > > How about answering the questions at the end of the Iron Chariots quote I asked you to? I’m not going to attempt to answer a bunch of questions posted on websites all over the internet. Why don’t you ask your own questions? If you must, copy and paste one or two. But really, can you not think for yourself? I’m not looking up answers any place. Also, the link didn’t work for me. > [@Fantome](#): > > WTF? You are starting with a preconceived notion of god. The god I am talking about exists out of necessity based on the criterion of "needing no cause. You’re looking at the statement on the right, equating him with some notion you have, then (understandably) wondering why he gets a pass. But wipe your mind clean—no gods. Just look at the statement on the left. The god I am describing is born out of that. So, by definition, he needs no cause. He is the Prime Mover. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/369 "2010-02-16T02:47:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. I did explain it in my reply to you. Please think about what I wrote, because it really does sum it up nicely You mean this?: > [@](#): > > Yes, he does. THAT"S the point. He/It is that which would need no cause. That’s summing it up nicely? That doesn’t explain anything at all. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to attempt to answer a bunch of questions posted on websites all over the internet. :rolleyes: I posted three very short paragraphs with two simple questions at the end. I didn’t ask you to answer a “bunch of questions” posted “all over the internet.” > [@](#): > > If you must, copy and paste one or two. Uhh, that’s what I did. The two questions are at the end of three very short paragraphs that I pasted. > [@](#): > > But really, can you not think for yourself? I asked you similar questions which you avoided yet you claimed you “summed up nicely.” > [@](#): > > Also, the link didn’t work for me. You don’t need the link as I posted the relevant part, but here’s the link again: [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological\_argument](http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument) ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/370 "2010-02-16T02:54:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You are starting with a preconceived notion of god. The god I am talking about exists out of necessity based on the criterion of "needing no cause. You’re looking at the statement on the right, equating him with some notion you have, then (understandably) wondering why he gets a pass. I’m doing no such thing. You are the one with the notion that everything needs a cause. If he exists, he requires a something that put him in motion by **your** criterion. > [@](#): > > But wipe your mind clean—no gods. Just look at the statement on the left. The god I am describing is born out of that. So, by definition, he needs no cause. He is the Prime Mover. If a god can exist without a cause, then he isn’t needed as a simple particle can be the prime mover or a universe that always was. You’re not explaining why any god gets a free pass but something else, anything else, doesn’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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/371 "2010-02-16T03:52:49Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You mean this?: Actually, I meant this exchange: [QUOTE=Fantome] You’re not telling us why this Creator God gets a free pass from your requirement. I posted a snippet from the IronChariots wiki yesterday and you didn’t respond. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=magellan] Logic. at some point you have to have a Prime Mover. That is God. Look at that line I just wrote. The thinking moves from left to right, not right to left. [/QUOTE] Your link worked for me this time, But I’m not sure which questions you want me to answer. Can you point me to your previous post, where you included the questions? Thanks. I’ll try to get to it tonight. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/372 "2010-02-16T04:00:13Z")
Nothing can exist without a cause, therefore there is something without a cause that caused everything else. Does that even begin to make sense? ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/373 "2010-02-16T04:01:05Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I’m doing no such thing. You are the one with the notion that everything needs a cause. If he exists, he requires a something that put him in motion by **your** criterion. No. You’re not reading closely enough. Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to god, IMO. > [@Fantome](#): > > If a god can exist without a cause, then he isn’t needed as a simple particle can be the prime mover or a universe that always was. You’re not explaining why any god gets a free pass but something else, anything else, doesn’t. Okay, based on this, would you at least agree that this particle is what we consider “other worldly”, that it, nor anything like it is contained within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/374 "2010-02-16T04:03:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Actually, I meant this exchange: That’s not any better. That’s a statement without an explanation of why your god gets a free pass. > [@](#): > > Can you point me to your previous post, where you included the questions? I re-posted it in post #363. I’ll post it again below. > [@](#): > > **Why assume the first cause is god-like?** > > Even if we grant that a first cause exists, it makes no sense to assume that it is any kind of god, let alone Yahweh. The idea of an intelligent, universe-creating god “just existing” is **far** more difficult to explain than the universe itself “just existing”. Intelligence is one of the most complex things we are aware of in the universe. To assume a being who is so intelligent that it can design an entire universe, as well as micromanage the personal lives of billions of people on earth through prayer, would require an enormous amount of explanation. > > Christians try to avoid this issue by saying “God does not need a cause because He is outside of time.” This is a glib non-answer. If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the big bang. It need not have any special powers at all. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define “outside of time”. Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause. > > Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe? ---
**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, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/375 "2010-02-16T04:04:25Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Nothing can exist without a cause, therefore there is something without a cause that caused everything else. Does that even begin to make sense? How about, nothing of our world? Can you point to anything that has no cause? If you can’t and all our scientists can’t, isn’t it logical to conclude that there is nothing that resembles anything we are aware of that will not require a cause. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/376 "2010-02-16T04:20:38Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. You’re not reading closely enough. What didn’t I read closely enough? Sheesh! > [@](#): > > Look, everything we can point to in our world has a cause for its existence. You cannot point to anything that does not. Zero items out all the universe we know qualifies. So what? You’re talking about at this point in the Universe’s existence where we the four fundamental forces. We don’t know what the laws of physics were earlier or before this Universe existed if there is such a thing as before the Universe. > [@](#): > > So, let’s say there is a thing that caused the BB. Based on the breadth of our experience it is logical that that thing would, in turn, need to have been caused. What seems like common sense isn’t necessarily the way things work in science. Effects may even precede causes sometimes in the quantum world. > [@](#): > > We keep going back that way. Eventually, we need something that caused what came after it, but it itself did NOT need a cause. That points to god, IMO. Yes, you’ve said that before. Several times now. You’re not explaining why this god gets a free pass from your own requirement. Read the three paragraphs I posted and answer the questions without just saying “god did it”, since this breaks the rules you say must exist. > [@](#): > > Okay, based on this, would you at least agree that this particle is what we consider “other worldly”, that it, nor anything like it is contained within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base? No. I’m not a scientist and from what I understand, particles may just be able to existence from nothing or effects may precede causes in the quantum world. Also, you’re ignoring that the Universe or bubble of universes may have always existed and there was no beginning. Are you saying a simple particle is “god” if it’s something that’s not “within the sphere of our collective experience and knowledge base?” In that case, there are lots of gods and there have been lots of gods that have ceased to be now that we understand them. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/377 "2010-02-16T04:48:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How about, nothing of our world? Can you point to anything that has no cause? If you can’t and all our scientists can’t, isn’t it logical to conclude that there is nothing that resembles anything we are aware of that will not require a cause. Just because you can’t fathom something without a cause doesn’t mean it isn’t possible and that there must be a god. Even if there is a “prime mover” there is absolutely no indication at all about any properties of this prime mover other than it is without cause. In other words, there is no evidence of sentience, no evidence of forethought and certainly no evidence of continued interaction with the universe. It just leaves big “so what”. The prime mover could be anything. There certainly isn’t any indication that this prime mover even still exists. And it most definitely is no indication that it has _any_ of the properties ever associated with any god ever defined anywhere, save for being uncaused. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/378 "2010-02-16T04:57:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How about, nothing of our world? Can you point to anything that has no cause? No, but apparently you can. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/379 "2010-02-16T07:57:26Z")
**Frank** , thanks for your reply ([Post #301](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12119807&postcount=301)). I’m not going to bother with the quote function, as we mostly agree or at least agree on the points where we disagree. I’m only posting as a courtesy, to follow up on your “Are there any sentient beings living on the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?” thought experiment. To be honest, I don’t think this is apt to the question at issue. Importantly, unlike God, we know for a fact that life can exist on a planet, as we live on one where it does. Whether it also exists on some other defined set of planets is a different kind of question. Further, I resolve that question on other grounds. From what we can tell, life probably isn’t unique to Earth, but it probably is pretty rare. So, I conclude it’s unlikely there is life on said close-by systems. Even taking the thought experiment on its own terms, if asked whether I believe they have life in the absence of evidence, I’d say no. I’d acknowledge this isn’t proof and I’d agree it’s possible. But, possible isn’t the same as 50/50. Heck, solipsism is possible, but I don’t lose much sleep over it. BTW, I’m curious. When it comes to astrology, are you skeptical or agnostic? For that matter, are you skeptical or agnostic about Yahweh, Zeus and Shiva? Bertrand Russell observed in _What Is an Agnostic?_ (1953), “If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.” What say you? Hint: I’d say that Russell was an agnostic by the standards of his day, but a soft atheist by contemporary standards. ---
**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 16, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/380 "2010-02-16T15:58:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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. I am not an atheist…although I understand the compulsion of atheists to want to include me in their ranks. But no matter how much they want me…I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. > [@](#): > > 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. If there is a “stigma” against atheism…I am not part of the group who sees the stigma…and if any theist were to assert a stigma against it, I would laugh at him or her for doing so. Any perceived “stigma” against atheism has nothing whatever to do with why I do not consider myself an atheist. I do not consider myself an atheist or a theist…because I am neither. I am an agnsotic. > [@](#): > > Why? You have a problem with using words as they’re _used_? Absolutely not…but if I cannot use a Websters Dictionary…or a Cambridge dictionary…to define a word, perhaps the problem is with the way the word is defined. I am an agnostic…no matter how much you want me to be one of you atheists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=20)