# 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:** 4
**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 11, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/61 "2010-02-11T17:15:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not a good comparison. Well obviously we have a difference of opinion here, Marley. I think it was an excellent comparison. > [@](#): > > We’re talking about beliefs on the subject of gods. You are saying ‘there is an argument that all beliefs on the subject are subsets of agnosticism.’ So this would mean everyone is an agnostic, whether they believe in god fervently or if they reject the idea completely. It makes the definition of agnostic so broad that it would be useless. Yes, it could, couldn’t it. You might want to re-read what I wrote…and consider the word “irony” while doing so. > [@](#): > > I know your opinion is that nobody knows for a fact if there are gods or not. But we are talking about people’s beliefs, and agnostic does not describe everyone’s beliefs. What do guesses…or what you call “beliefs”…have to do with what I said? Are you suggesting that because you guess something…it means you know it? If you “believe” something…does that mean you know it? > [@](#): > > I didn’t ask you to withdraw it. But I don’t think using the word “guess” as a substitute for all other words, like “believe” or “think,” makes everybody into an agnostic. Okay. I obviously think differently on this. > [@](#): > > If you have a question about moderating, send me a private message or ask me in the About This Message Board forum. I’d like for this thread to stay on topic and I did not moderate any posts in here. If I have any questions, I will do exactly that, Marley. At the moment, I have no questions whatever…I am a quick learn. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/62 "2010-02-11T17:19:39Z")
I think the hard atheism idea is just an invention put out by religious people. Atheists don’t believe in God because they see no evidence of God. But if evidence appeared they would change their beliefs. No atheist would look an angel in the eye and deny that angels exist. The idea that atheists are so stubborn that they would deny supernatural beings in the face of actual evidence is, as I said, an idea put out by religious people to discredit atheists As for those who think agnosticism are just atheism light, I say you’re wimps. You don’t believe in God but you’re afraid of pissing him off. Figure out what you believe and make a stand. Believe in God and start going to church or don’t believe in God and start calling yourself an atheist. Stop trying to be on everybody’s side by equivicating somewhere in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/63 "2010-02-11T17:20:10Z")
Oh, and Frank, I am still waiting to hear if you are an agbunniest or abunniest. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/64 "2010-02-11T17:20:50Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I think it was an excellent comparison. Since you have missed the point of what I was saying, I don’t think you made a good comparison. > [@](#): > > Yes, it could, couldn’t it. You might want to re-read what I wrote…and consider the word “irony” while doing so. But the irony doesn’t work, and the result is nonsense. That’s not the case if you define agnosticism as a type of atheism. > [@](#): > > What do guesses…or what you call “beliefs”…have to do with what I said? They’re the topic of this discussion. > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that because you guess something…it means you know it? That would be stupid. What I am attempting to explain to you is that atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all descriptions of people’s views on gods. We are discussing the value of those different descriptions. Your response to that is to say ‘nobody knows for sure, so they are all agnostics.’ The problem is that while nobody has definitive proof of their answers, what you are saying is wrong because it is not a good description of their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/65 "2010-02-11T17:21:08Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Let’s assume you are sitting on an island cut off from all communication. While you are gone a new belief system comes into place; let’s call it Xism. Xists call those who do not believe in X, aXists. > > So does that somehow change your beliefs? I guess you’re responding to where I said that is a useful term because so many people are theists? I didn’t infer having the term would change my beliefs. Having the term is useful because it’s a quick and easy way of telling others when it is called for (like in these sort of threads) that you differ from the majority of society in that you don’t believe in the existence of gods. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/66 "2010-02-11T17:24:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think the hard atheism idea is just an invention put out by religious people. Atheists don’t believe in God because they see no evidence of God. But if evidence appeared they would change their beliefs. No atheist would look an angel in the eye and deny that angels exist. The idea that atheists are so stubborn that they would deny supernatural beings in the face of actual evidence is, as I said, an idea put out by religious people to discredit atheists > > As for those who think agnosticism are just atheism light, I say you’re wimps. You don’t believe in God but you’re afraid of pissing him off. Figure out what you believe and make a stand. Believe in God and start going to church or don’t believe in God and start calling yourself an atheist. Stop trying to be on everybody’s side by equivicating somewhere in the middle. I obviously agree with most of this, but I am sure that there are athiests who _would_ look evidence in the eyes and just deny it. We see that now with theists who insist that the world is 6,000 years old. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/67 "2010-02-11T17:26:40Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I guess you’re responding to where I said that is a useful term because so many people are theists? I didn’t infer having the term would change my beliefs. Having the term is useful because it’s a quick and easy way of telling others when it is called for (like in these sort of threads) that you differ from the majority of society in that you don’t believe in the existence of gods. I guess you think you are smarter than Huxley then: > [@](#): > > I think the reason Thomas Huxley coined the word was to differentiate himself from atheists…because he saw the inherent flaw in the atheism of his day. He realized that asserting, “there are no gods” was simply the reverse side of the theist obverse, “there is a god.” > > Neither was sustainable as an assertion…and both had the taint of “belief” and “faith in that belief.” ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/68 "2010-02-11T17:26:49Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Why? > > If everyone is a human…does the word “human” have zero meaning for you? I’ll simplify this for you since you aren’t getting it. Human is a useful term because there are other species. When we use it, we are distinguishing ourselves from other creatures and inanimate objects. When we talk about religious terms such as agnostic, theist, etc., we already know only humans have these concepts. If we’re all agnostic, how is it a term that would ever be useful? Why would anyone tell anyone they’re agnostic in a discussion such as this if we’re all agnostic? The response would just be, “Duh, we all are.” ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/69 "2010-02-11T17:30:12Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I guess you think you are smarter than Huxley then: I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Why would you believe I think I’m smarter than Huxley? You just posted what another poster said about why he believes Huxley coined the term _agnostic_. You’re not making any sense. ---
**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 11, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/70 "2010-02-11T17:35:24Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I obviously agree with most of this, but I am sure that there are athiests who _would_ look evidence in the eyes and just deny it. If you are _sure_, could you come up with with an example or two of this happening? Unless, of course, your surety stems from blind faith. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/71 "2010-02-11T17:36:08Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I don’t really give a rat’s ass what atheists think about the word…or what lexicographers do either. Or about their strategy…if they have such a thing. Do you spend so much time and effort on everything else that you don’t “give a rat’s ass” about? > [@](#): > > I was merely responding to something that was posted by someone else. As I responded to you. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Fact is, I wish we would all drop the designations and simply speak about what our takes are on the issues at hand…rather than constantly debating the meanings of the words of designation. This is hilarious given your next statement: > [@](#): > > And if you implying that I am proffering a theistic outlook here, you are very wrong. Bullshit. You think you’re the first christian to come in here and pretend to be totally neutral on christianity while simultaneously trying to discredit atheism? Hint: you’re not. Incidentally, didn’t your god have something to say about telling the truth? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/72 "2010-02-11T17:50:30Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I think a better case that can be made that “theism” and “atheism” are sub-sets of agnosticism. > > My guess is that none of us knows if there are gods or not–agnostic. > > Some blindly guess there are…or that it is more probable that there are… and call themselves theists. Some blindly guess there are not…or that it is more probable that there are not…and call themselves atheists. Bullshit. Pure and unadulterated at that. There’s no “blind guessing” involved in denying man-made gods whose very descriptions defy both the laws of logic and physics. Simple common sense will tell you that. Beyond that I have a problem with the [classic definition of agnosticism](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism) as it is self-contradictory in the sense that it makes definitive claims on what can and cannot be known. Ironically, a statement of absolute truth if I ever read one. In short, how can anyone know what is knowable or not other than at _present time_? Other than guessing that is. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/73 "2010-02-11T18:13:52Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. Why would you believe I think I’m smarter than Huxley? You just posted what another poster said about why he believes Huxley coined the term _agnostic_ Sorry, I was conflating you with another poster. ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/74 "2010-02-11T18:32:24Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Bullshit. Pure and unadulterated at that. There’s no “blind guessing” involved in denying man-made gods whose very descriptions defy both the laws of logic and physics. Simple common sense will tell you that. Right. And the theists keep telling me that simple common sense will tell me that a god has to exist. Under any circumstances I was not discussing man-made gods. > [@](#): > > Beyond that I have a problem with the [classic definition of agnosticism](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism) as it is self-contradictory in the sense that it makes definitive claims on what can and cannot be known. Ironically, a statement of absolute truth if I ever read one. > > In short, how can anyone know what is knowable or not other than at _present time_? Other than guessing that is. Take that up with the Free Dictionary. I have been very, very careful to explain that there is absolutely no way I can possibly KNOW what can or cannot be known. I know (to the extent that I can know anything) that I do not know the answers to questions about the Reality of existence…that I cannot rule in or out things like gods. But at no point have I ever suggested that it is unknowable to everyone else. In fact, in one thread, I fought against that definition emphatically. I suspect that definition is the result of a lazy lexicographer. So like I said…take your problem up with the Free Dictionary. ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/75 "2010-02-11T18:35:01Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Do you spend so much time and effort on everything else that you don’t “give a rat’s ass” about? > As I responded to you. What’s your point? > This is hilarious given your next statement: > Bullshit. You think you’re the first christian to come in here and pretend to be totally neutral on christianity while simultaneously trying to discredit atheism? Hint: you’re not. Incidentally, didn’t your god have something to say about telling the truth? The “Christian god” can blow me…or kiss my ass…whichever is more convenient. One doesn’t have to be a theist to see the absurdity of some atheistic commentary. I am an agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/76 "2010-02-11T18:41:19Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I have been very, very careful to explain that there is absolutely no way I can possibly KNOW what can or cannot be known. I know (to the extent that I can know anything) that I do not know the answers to questions about the Reality of existence…that I cannot rule in or out things like gods. But at no point have I ever suggested that it is unknowable to everyone else. In fact, in one thread, I fought against that definition emphatically. But what is your position on 11 foot tall unknowable pink bunnies whose existence, by definition, is unknowable? Your argument, ultimately, is circular. If you posit that there might be something whose existence can’t be known, then of course you can’t know if it exists. But why would someone take that position to start with? It’s because we have a tradition of deities whose existence _can_ be known; they create floods, return people from the dead, cause lightning, and appear as burning bushes. Somehow you are taking the position that while you don’t believe in deities that \*can \* be known, you aren’t so sure about deities whose existence \*can’t \*be known. Does that make any kind of sense 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 11, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/77 "2010-02-11T18:42:17Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > I’ll simplify this for you since you aren’t getting it. Human is a useful term because there are other species. When we use it, we are distinguishing ourselves from other creatures and inanimate objects. When we talk about religious terms such as agnostic, theist, etc., we already know only humans have these concepts. If we’re all agnostic, how is it a term that would ever be useful? Why would anyone tell anyone they’re agnostic in a discussion such as this if we’re all agnostic? The response would just be, “Duh, we all are.” If the word agnostic means “to not know if there are gods or if there are no gods” (one possible form of the definition)…why do you suppose it is erroneous for me to guess that we are all agnostic? That is all I did! It was an attempt at humorous irony in reply to another post suggesting that agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. Q: Do you know atheists have no sense of humor? A: No, but if you hum a few bars, I might be able to fake it! ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/78 "2010-02-11T18:42:56Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Right. And the theists keep telling me that simple common sense will tell me that a god has to exist. WTF does what theists tell you have to do with **RedFury** said? Are you here just to fuck with everyone or what? > [@](#): > > Under any circumstances I was not discussing man-made gods. So you’re talking about a real gods? The ones you say you have no belief in? Gotcha. > [@](#): > > The “Christian god” can blow me…or kiss my ass…whichever is more convenient. One doesn’t have to be a theist to see the absurdity of some atheistic commentary. I am an agnostic. Didn’t you say that Christians would fall under the heading of agnostic too? What definition of agnostic this time do you expect **Don’t Call Me Shirley** to use to understand what you mean by that statement? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/79 "2010-02-11T18:43:12Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am an agnostic. Question, binary: do you have a belief that there is a God. Choose one Yes/No. If ‘Yes’, you are a theist. If ‘No’, then you are an a-theist. If you claim that “maybe” you believe there there is a God, you do not understand what the word “believe” means. If you say that you are not sure or do not know if there is a God or not, then by definition you do not believe that there is one, since you do not have the belief that there is one. That means you are an a-theist. A-gnosis is not a separate group. It overlaps with theism and atheism but has no separate identity, at all. The pose that it is somehow superior to both is risible as it is distinct from neither. ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/80 "2010-02-11T18:44:47Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > If the word agnostic means “to not know if there are gods or if there are no gods” (one possible form of the definition)…why do you suppose it is erroneous for me to guess that we are all agnostic? > > That is all I did! > > It was an attempt at humorous irony in reply to another post suggesting that agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. > > Q: Do you know atheists have no sense of humor? > > A: No, but if you hum a few bars, I might be able to fake it! I think I’m noticing a pattern here. **Frank apisa** -just how much of a joke is this whole topic to you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=5)