# 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:** 22
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/421 "2010-02-16T20:49:24Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Well no. No one is saying just because there is evidence that indicates there isn’t a god, that means he doesn’t exist. It is what it is. But there IS evidence. You don’t get to just dismiss it completely just because it’s not a rock solid 100% proof. I am not dismissing anything, Gustav. Why are you saying I am? I am suggesting that a lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist. I gave an example. I am not asking for “rock solid 100% proof” of anything. What “evidence” do you have that gods do not exist? ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/422 "2010-02-16T20:50:50Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Actually, I am dealing only with the notion that a lack of evidence is evidence that something does not exist. > > You seem to be extending that (what I consider false) reasoning to say that since there is no evidence that beings that defy the laws of science and logic …that means that they do not exist. > > But that is not how the logic works. Not what I am saying, and not what I said. For the _last_ time-it is my position that if you put forth as possibilities entities that defy the laws of science and logic _ **it is not worth my time to even consider the possibility of their existence until it can be established that the laws of science and logic CAN be defied in the first place!** _ ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/423 "2010-02-16T20:52:37Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am not dismissing anything, Gustav. Why are you saying I am? > > I am suggesting that a lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist. > > I gave an example. > > I am not asking for “rock solid 100% proof” of anything. > > What “evidence” do you have that gods do not exist? Please give a description of the entity you wish us to give evidence against. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/424 "2010-02-16T20:55:45Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am suggesting that a lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist. Yes. It is. ---
**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, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/425 "2010-02-16T21:02:21Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Yes. It is. Exactly. For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong. We don’t have to look everywhere in the (highly speculative) multiverse to see where he is-we only have to point out where he _isn’t_. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/426 "2010-02-16T21:11:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Not what I am saying, and not what I said. > For the _last_ time-it is my position that if you put forth as possibilities entities that defy the laws of science and logic _ **it is not worth my time to even consider the possibility of their existence until it can be established that the laws of science and logic CAN be defied in the first place!** _ Okay…fine with me. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/427 "2010-02-16T21:14:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Please give a description of the entity you wish us to give evidence against. Well…for a start: Give evidence that you are not god…and have constructed this world as an illusion so that you can play a game of “solve the puzzle”…and spend time feeling that you are not the only thing that exists. ---
**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, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/428 "2010-02-16T21:16:24Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Yes. It is. No, it is not. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/429 "2010-02-16T21:17:17Z")
[QUOTE=Frank apisa] I am suggesting that a lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gustav] Yes. It is. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Czarcasm] Exactly. For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong. We don’t have to look everywhere in the (highly speculative) multiverse to see where he is-we only have to point out where he isn’t. [/QUOTE] Seriously? A lack of evidence about something is in fact evidence that it does not exist?? And this on a purported scientificly oriented message board?!? I have to wonder…do you feel the same across the board, or is your assertion narrowly focused solely on the question of God or the gods? If the former then sadly your grasp of science is deeply flawed…off the top of my head I can think of several scientific principals and theories for which there is nothing but the math, yet scientists continue to search for them never the less…and will do so for years to come. If the latter, then at best you are being inconsistent. -XT ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/430 "2010-02-16T21:21:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Exactly. For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong. We don’t have to look everywhere in the (highly speculative) multiverse to see where he is-we only have to point out where he _isn’t_. Very carefully put, Czarcasm. But that still doesn’t show that “lack of evidence of “x” is evidence that “x” doesn’t exist. In fact…the opposite is inherent in what you wrote. > [@](#): > > For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong. That is not evidence that it does not exist…but that it MAY not exist. If it MIGHT be wrong, it MIGHT be right. C’mon. You guys know I am right on this. You can say it. It won’t hurt you. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/431 "2010-02-16T21:21:58Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Well…for a start: Give evidence that you are not god…and have constructed this world as an illusion so that you can play a game of “solve the puzzle”…and spend time feeling that you are not the only thing that exists. You mean besides the fact that if I were a god you would agree with me just because I wanted you to? Considering what you just put forth as an example of “logic”, my question is: Can you give evidence that you are not just here to jerk our chains? ---
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/432 "2010-02-16T21:22:11Z")
“For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong.” ‘God is everywhere’ is a theist claim. Agnostics dont claim to know whether god is everywhere or not and how that might occur if so, so that claim to empirical evidence on the issue is meaningless. Agnostics might say there is ample evidence for many other phenomena that werent currently detectable but positted and were subsequently found, and that there are probably many things we cant see but are present around us and may never be able to detect with the technology we can develop. To think otherwise is simply egotism about the limitless nature of our technology to progress in its detection capabilities. We dont know what we dont know and for some things never will. Not being able to detect something is not evidence that it doesnt exist, unless a clear theoretical mechanism has been developed to predict that phenomenon and how it might be detected and the theory isnt supported by the predicted evidence. Empirical predictions only work well within empirical settings. No such specific theory exists for god because everywhere hasnt been defined in any testable sense. Again, it is not a concept that lends itself well to empirical enquiry, which is a key issue agnostics and atheists seem to differ on. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/433 "2010-02-16T21:22:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously? A lack of evidence about something is in fact evidence that it does not exist?? And this on a purported scientificly oriented message board?!? I have to wonder…do you feel the same across the board, or is your assertion narrowly focused solely on the question of God or the gods? If the former then sadly your grasp of science is deeply flawed…off the top of my head I can think of several scientific principals and theories for which there is nothing but the math, yet scientists continue to search for them never the less…and will do so for years to come. If the latter, then at best you are being inconsistent. > > -XT “Nothing but the math”? That’s not nothing, that’s something. Hell, it’s the best kind of something. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/434 "2010-02-16T21:29:36Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You mean besides the fact that **if I were a god** you would agree with me just because I wanted you to? Now that I think back, I should have realized this before now. Does posting on the SDMB count as worship? To make explicit my riff on the point **Czarcasm** is making: we don’t even need to put it as a hypothetical. **Frank,** must I, or should you, by your own argumetns, be agnostic as to whether **Czarcasm** is a God? What if someone (for the purposes of argument, I’ll be happy to do so) suggests he is? After all, there is no evidence he isn’t–and certainly an all-powerful God might choose not to exercise those powers–and so, by your standpoints, we can’t know he doesn’t have any. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/435 "2010-02-16T21:32:17Z")
[QUOTE=Gustav] “Nothing but the math”? That’s not nothing, that’s something. Hell, it’s the best kind of something. [/QUOTE] Are you of the opinion that they can’t be wrong? That because the math says it MIGHT be possible that it necessarily HAS to be? What if they never find a Higgs Boson? A neutrino? What if the math is wrong? How is that better? I’m sorry, but the absence of evidence does not PROVE anything, except perhaps on a probability curve. To me, it’s highly unscientific to make a categorical statement that something for which you have no evidence does not exist. A more scientific view, IMHO, is that without evidence one can’t make a reasonable judgment, but that the very lack of evidence strongly points to the probability that something doesn’t exist. I put the existence of a god or gods about the same probability as IPU’s…which is only slightly higher than zero. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/436 "2010-02-16T21:36:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m sorry, but the absence of evidence does not PROVE anything, except perhaps on a probability curve. I’m pretty sure this is what I’ve been saying all along. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it IS evidence. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/437 "2010-02-16T21:39:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You mean besides the fact that if I were a god you would agree with me just because I wanted you to? Not if I were god also! Ya know…that non-dualistic thing. And for sure you realize by now that I use “gods” rather than “god” for a reason. > [@](#): > > Considering what you just put forth as an example of “logic”, my question is: > Can you give evidence that you are not just here to jerk our chains? Nope. I cannot. I am not…most definitely not. If I had known this was primarily an atheistic site, I probably would have declined coming to it. Most site dominated by atheists are much, much more frustrating (and dogmatic) than even theistic sites. I AM here,however, even if just by mistake…some interesting topics are being discussed…the snow is preventing me from playing golf…and I’ve decided to stick around for a while. But either you take my word for it that I am not here to just “jerk your chain”…or consider me a liar. Your choice. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/438 "2010-02-16T21:41:27Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Now that I think back, I should have realized this before now. Does posting on the SDMB count as worship? > > To make explicit my riff on the point **Czarcasm** is making: we don’t even need to put it as a hypothetical. **Frank,** must I, or should you, by your own argumetns, be agnostic as to whether **Czarcasm** is a God? What if someone (for the purposes of argument, I’ll be happy to do so) suggests he is? > > After all, there is no evidence he isn’t–and certainly an all-powerful God might choose not to exercise those powers–and so, by your standpoints, we can’t know he doesn’t have any. Read my response to Czarcasm…and if that doesn’t answer your question, come back at me. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/439 "2010-02-16T21:43:26Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Yeah it is, actually. Which is the reason I am bringing up the 5 star Sol question. Would you agree that if this premise is not true that your entire argument falls apart? > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I would certainly make a guess that it has no tail side. But in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time…and with some people I know having time to “tweak” the coin…I suppose a billion heads in a row could be possible even with a coin having both heads and tails. But according to you, lack of evidence for a tail side is not evidence that there is no tail side. You can only state, “I don’t know.” You’ve moved your default position from “I don’t know” to “guess it does not exist.” > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > (about life on Saturn) I do not know. Can you give me an example of something you know? Based on this response, it would seem that there isn’t anything in your world that can possibly be said to be known. ---
**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, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/440 "2010-02-16T21:44:05Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I’m pretty sure this is what I’ve been saying all along. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it IS evidence. Lemme try this again…in English: It…is…NOT…EVIDENCE…that…“x”…DOES NOT…exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=23)