# 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:** 20
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/381 "2010-02-16T16:04:22Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > But _why_ is it plausible enough to be considered a possibility? Why is it any more plausible than considering the existence of the FSM? Because when I am asking myself “How did existence come about?”…Flying Spaghetti Monsters never come to mind. But the possibility of gods does come to mind; namely, if I consider the possibility that gods are involved in the question of “How did existence come about?”…I must also consider the possibility that Flying Spaghetti Monsters are possible also. Whenever the FSM comes up…it ONLY comes up when I am in debate with an atheist who is trying to make a point that I consider absurd. The notion that gods may be a possible explanation for existence comes up in all sorts of philosophical discussions. That is why. > [@](#): > > _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. No problem with me if you do not think it silly or fatuous. Not sure why it is a problem with you if I do. ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/382 "2010-02-16T16:07:02Z")
> [@TheFatKid](#): > > 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? Because except for “there isn’t any evidence that gods exist” and “there is no need for gods to exist”…neither of which is really evidence that gods do not exist…there simply isn’t any evidence that gods do not exist. That is why. And if you think there is “sufficient evidence” that no gods exist…present it for consideration. ---
**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 16, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/383 "2010-02-16T16:10:34Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Because except for “there isn’t any evidence that gods exist” and “there is no need for gods to exist”…neither of which is really evidence that gods do not exist…there simply isn’t any evidence that gods do not exist. > > That is why. > > And if you think there is “sufficient evidence” that no gods exist…present it for consideration. Evidence for the non-existence of gods does not _need_ to exist, for those who propose these gods do so without evidence to disprove. There is nothing of substance _to_ disprove. I repeat: _There is nothing of substance to disprove._ Get it? ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/384 "2010-02-16T16:21:24Z")
> [@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? No it doesn’t! Actually, this argument started with Thomas Aquinas doing what so many atheists attempt to do…essentially to set up a false default on the question. Atheists claim that in the absence of evidence that there ARE GODS…the default position should be that there are no gods. Thomas Aquinas, in his “first cause” argument, concludes that since all events have causes, the default position for the “first cause” should be THERE IS A GOD that is the first cause. (He did it for “mover” etc. also.) Aquinas and the atheists are, in my agnostic opinion, all wrong. The default position should be “We do not know.” So, Dan…you are absoluely right. It doesn’t make sense. But neither does the default position of atheists. ---
**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 16, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/385 "2010-02-16T16:27:09Z")
I have no evidence that there is $1000 in my wallet, so my default position should be “I don’t _know_ that my wallet doesn’t contain $1000.”? I don’t _think_ so. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/386 "2010-02-16T16:29:36Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Atheists claim that in the absence of evidence that there ARE GODS…the default position should be that there are no gods. You’re making a blanket statement about what atheists claim that is total bullshit. The most common atheist claim is that in the absence of evidence the default position should be \*\*lack of belief \*\*that there are gods. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/387 "2010-02-16T16:55:41Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > **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. Thank you for your reply, Bear. I will comment at length on your comments. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, first of all allow me to go on record as saying that I am not sure if life is or is not unique to Earth (my purely blind guess is that it is not)…and I cannot say, as you do, that it probably is pretty rare (the universe may be teeming with life and our Solar system may be the only one with life being rare). I honestly do not have enough facts to work on to make either of those conclusions or guesses. I will say this: The question I was dealing with was: Is a lack of evidence of “x”, evidence that “x” does not exist. That was the purpose of the question I proposed. My very strong position is that it IS NOT! Others here claim it IS. So I proposed the question you mentioned here. We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any life exists on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…NONE WHATSOEVER! (The question of life on our planet…or the proposed probability of life throughout the universe really does not play a part in the question next proposed.) Is the fact that we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of sentient life (or life of any kind) on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol evidence that there is no life on any of those planets…or not? The answer, Bear, has to be NO! There is no way to make a logical argument that the lack of evidence of life on any of those planets is evidence of no life there. That’s all. It is an attempt to show that a lack of evidence of “x”…is not evidence that “x” does not exist. I honestly think I have made my case. > [@](#): > > BTW, I’m curious. When it comes to astrology, are you skeptical or agnostic? I would say we have fairly strong evidence that astrology does not work at all. We do not have any real evidence that gods do not exist. > [@](#): > > For that matter, are you skeptical or agnostic about Yahweh, Zeus and Shiva? I have enough evidence to guess that Yahweh, Zeus, and Shiva are more than likely human inventions. I do not have enough evidence to guess that no gods exist. > [@](#): > > 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? I would not even undertake such a mission. I never ask for proof of gods from theists…nor do I ask for proof of no-gods from atheists. When an assertion is made that there are gods…I ask for evidence supporting the assertion; when an assertion is made that there are no gods…I ask for evidence supporting that assertion. I have never gotten any reasonable evidence to support a position of “there are gods” or “there are no gods” or “it is more likely there are gods than that there are no gods” or “it is more likely there are no gods than that there are gods.” That is purely a personal thing. I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned people disagree…some saying they see evidence in favor of gods existing or as being more probable than gods exist…and some saying they see evidence in favor of gods not existing or as being more probable that gods do not exist. Like I said: I see the evidence pointing in neither direction. > [@](#): > > Hint: I’d say that Russell was an agnostic by the standards of his day, but a soft atheist by contemporary standards. Whatever he was, I know what I am. An agnostic. Thanks for not being as confrontational or as riled as some of the good folk here have been, Bear. Good to talk to 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 16, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/388 "2010-02-16T17:05:11Z")
Magellan, you wrote (to Begbert, in reference to his comments to me) > [@](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. I thank you for these comments…and I appreciate your taking the time to post them. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/389 "2010-02-16T17:08:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I have no evidence that there is $1000 in my wallet, so my default position should be “I don’t _know_ that my wallet doesn’t contain $1000.”? > > I don’t _think_ so. You have no evidence that there are no sentient beings living on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…none at all. So should the default position be “There is no sentient life there” or “We do not know if there is life there?” You tell me. ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/390 "2010-02-16T17:11:49Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > You have no evidence that there are no sentient beings living on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol…none at all. > > So should the default position be “There is no sentient life there” or “We do not know if there is life there?” > > You tell me. I’ve seen $1000. I’ve seen sentient beings. Invisible sentient beings that defy science and logic-not so much. ---
**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, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/391 "2010-02-16T17:14:51Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You’re making a blanket statement about what atheists claim that is total bullshit. The most common atheist claim is that in the absence of evidence the default position should be \*\*lack of belief \*\*that there are gods. You are correct. I should have said that \*\*\*some \*\*\*atheists make that claim. My argument is with the ones that do. In any case, in the absence of evidence of that gods exist…the default position should be a lack of belief that gods exist…and a lack of belief that gods do not exist. In other words…we do not know. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/392 "2010-02-16T17:15:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’ve seen $1000. > I’ve seen sentient beings. > Invisible sentient beings that defy science and logic-not so much. Okay…but have you seen “sentient being that exist on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?” If not, the question still holds. ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/393 "2010-02-16T17:19:47Z")
$1000000 diamonds exist. It is _possible_ that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even _contemplating_ the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house? Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand? ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/394 "2010-02-16T17:19:33Z")
$1000000 diamonds exist. It is _possible_ that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even _contemplating_ the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house? Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand? ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/395 "2010-02-16T17:26:13Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Okay…but have you seen “sentient being that exist on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol?” > > If not, the question still holds. I’m open minded towards the possibility that what has been observed to happen here might happen elsewhere. Start giving these hypothetical critters abilities that defy science and/or logic, and we’ve got problems. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/396 "2010-02-16T17:33:46Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > In any case, in the absence of evidence of that gods exist…the default position should be a lack of belief that gods exist Right. And by common definition we call that person an atheist. > [@](#): > > …and a lack of belief that gods do not exist. In other words…we do not know. Wrong. Lack of belief does not mean not knowing. I lack belief that I’m the Queen of England and I also know that I’m not. Atheists can lack belief that gods exist and claim to know that they don’t. It’s what hard atheists claim in case you’re not aware. You may not like these definitions but you’re stuck with them. You don’t have to use them, but the majority of atheists and religious philosophers do. If would help you be on the same page if you’re going to discuss these matters instead of bitching that they don’t apply to 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 16, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/397 "2010-02-16T17:39:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > $1000000 diamonds exist. It is _possible_ that someone walking past your house accidentally dropped one. Though it wouldn’t take much effort on your part, how much time are you going to waste looking for that theoretical diamond, or even _contemplating_ the possibility that there might be a $1000000 diamond in front of your house? > Are you agnostic towards that possibility, or do you dismiss that possibility out of hand? You seem to think the possibility of gods being a part of the Reality of existence is about on a par with (or even less than) the possibility of someone walking past my house and dropping a $1,000,000 diamond and my finding it. Why don’t you show us how you arrived at either of those probabilities…especially the probablility that gods exist as part of the Reality of existence. By the way…while walking in New York City one day…I once found two diamonds in the street. They were part of a ring that somehow had been dropped in the street and run over by cars. But the gold in the ring…and the diamonds…are still in my desk drawer. It happens…no matter how unlikely it may seem. In the meantime…why don’t you tell us what the default answer is to my question about whether or not sentient beings exist on any planet circling the 5 nearest stars to Sol? ---
**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 16, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/398 "2010-02-16T17:42:35Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > In the meantime…why don’t you tell us what the default answer is to my question about whether or not sentient beings exist on any planet circling the 5 nearest stars to Sol? I gave you my answer-what part of it are you having trouble understanding? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/399 "2010-02-16T17:49:26Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Right. And by common definition we call that person an atheist. Only if you purposefully cut off the rest of the statement. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Lack of belief does not mean not knowing. What on earth are you talking about? Stop breaking the statement up so you can make arguments that do not hold water if you do not break them up. > [@](#): > > I lack belief that I’m the Queen of England and I also know that I’m not. Great, what does that have to do with my statement? > [@](#): > > Atheists can lack belief that gods exist and claim to know that they don’t. They can lack belief that gods exist and claim that they are all Napoleon also. So what? > [@](#): > > It’s what hard atheists claim in case you’re not aware. I am aware of that. Whatever gave you the notion that I was not? > [@](#): > > You may not like these definitions but you’re stuck with them. You don’t have to use them, but the majority of atheists and religious philosophers do. I say they do not. So show me the evidence that “the majority of atheists and religious philosophers” do. > [@](#): > > If would help you be on the same page if you’re going to discuss these matters instead of bitching that they don’t apply to you. Not even sure what that sentence is suppose to mean…it is almost incomprehensible. But if you were saying there are circumstances where you would be on my side…let me know what those circumstances are, and I will avoid them. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/400 "2010-02-16T18:14:53Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Only if you purposefully cut off the rest of the statement. No, even with the rest of your statement one is an atheist. > [@](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? You must have asked that to posters about a dozen times over the past few days. I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time understanding plain English. > [@](#): > > Stop breaking the statement up so you can make arguments that do not hold water if you do not break them up. I didn’t take anything out of context. > [@](#): > > Great, what does that have to do with my statement? What’s so hard to understand? You said lack of belief is synonymous with not knowing. My example is to show you’re wrong. That you’re now saying “great”, I take it that you’re now admitting it. Good for you. > [@](#): > > I say they do not. So show me the evidence that “the majority of atheists and religious philosophers” do. You’ve been shown. For days now people have been showing you but you want to beat a dead horse over and over. When is the golf course re-opening? > [@](#): > > Not even sure what that sentence is suppose to mean…it is almost incomprehensible. I bet no one is having a hard time understanding what I wrote. The same as I haven’t had a hard time understanding what others wrote every time you make that same claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=21)