# 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:** 5
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/81 "2010-02-11T18:47:51Z")
> [@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. The irony failed for reasons that have already been explained by several people. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/82 "2010-02-11T18:48:43Z")
> [@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! Yeah, you’re just fucking with us. Post after post people have responded to your unusual definition of agnostic and you played along and told no one “it was an attempt at humor.” Good luck sticking around here. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/83 "2010-02-11T18:48:50Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > 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? Well I am sorry you think that, but I do appreciate your sharing it with me. Fact is, when I am dealing with questions about the existence or non-existence of gods, I am actually dealing with the questions of: What is the Reality of existence? What is THIS (spreading my arms wide) all about? Are there any possible explanations for all this that I can definitely rule out…any that I must rule in? I always come up with “I do not know” for that first question and the second; and I come up with “NO” for the third. When I am asked about 11 foot tall unknowable pink bunnies or CPA’S working on a moon of Saturn or Flying Spaghetti Monsters…I know I am dealing with an atheist who thinks he is making a cogent point with a trite bit of nothingness…so I really don’t give it serious consideration. I hope that answered your question, Dan. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/84 "2010-02-11T18:50:31Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Yeah, you’re just fucking with us. Post after post people have responded to your unusual definition of agnostic and you played along and told no one “it was an attempt at humor.” Good luck sticking around here. What on earth are you talking about, Fantome? Why are you in such a dither? And what is so “unusual” about my definition of MY agnosticism? ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/85 "2010-02-11T18:50:55Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Does anyone see slight flaw in that position? “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” -Bill Clinton. “I am not a racist.” -David Duke. “I am not a crook.” -Richard Nixon “I do not have a belief that there is a God. And I’m certainly not an atheist!” -an atheist. Yes, sometimes it is perfectly proper to see whether someone’s self-description matches the facts or not. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/86 "2010-02-11T18:51:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The irony failed for reasons that have already been explained by several people. Okay…so it was a bad attempt. What is the penalty for that in this forum? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/87 "2010-02-11T18:53:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. It took me a while to get my mind around that when I first learned it because I had to break my mind of being told for years that there were only three categories to pick from regarding having faith: 1. Theist says yes 2. Atheist says no 3. Agnostic says maybe It helped when the question of faith was posed like this: Question, binary: do you have a belief that there is a God. Choose one **YES** or **NOT YES** (which includes all forms of no and maybe) If ‘ **Yes** ’, you are a theist. If ‘ **Not Yes** ’, then you are an a-theist. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/88 "2010-02-11T18:54:58Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Okay…so it was a bad attempt. > > What is the penalty for that in this forum? Having people point out that it didn’t work. …Followed by death. ---
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/89 "2010-02-11T18:58:23Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. You are really not going to trot out that a-theistic nonsense here, are you??? C’mon! “Atheistic” didn’t come about by adding “a” to "theistic.” That is just garbage atheists use to make it seem that all one has to do to be an atheist is to “not believe in gods.” True, some dictionaries have picked up on it…but the etymological dictionaries tell it like it really is. Atheistic was in the English language before theistic, actually. I realize that atheists want to have a monopoly on the notion of “not believing in gods”…but you do not. Agnostics also do not believe in gods. You can try as hard as you want to include us in your mix…and you could probably use the intellectual help…but most of us are not willing to associate with you. But nice try. ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/90 "2010-02-11T18:59:32Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > What on earth are you talking about, Fantome? What don’t you get? You went on about it being a useful term even though everyone would be one, and you argued over it over several posts with several other posters. Now you’re telling us it was just an attempt at humorous irony? You’re not supposed to do that here in case you’re not aware of the rules. > [@](#): > > Why are you in such a dither? Still getting your rocks off? > [@](#): > > And what is so “unusual” about my definition of MY agnosticism? Which one? Are you going to respond to the post of mine that you skipped over or not? ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/91 "2010-02-11T18:59:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Having people point out that it didn’t work. > > …Followed by death. Jeez…I thought that last part was prohibited by rules. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/22d042/32.png) [@Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/92 "2010-02-11T19:00:52Z")
Strictly speaking, if you are willing to argue at length about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then you aren’t an agnostic or an atheist. Either way, there are still no 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 11, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/93 "2010-02-11T19:05:47Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > What don’t you get? You went on about it being a useful term even though everyone would be one, and you argued over it over several posts with several other posters. Now you’re telling us it was just an attempt at humorous irony? What are you talking about? This one response I considered a ironic, humorous comment in response to something someone else said. Why does that negate whatever it is you think I negated? And why don’t you bring up a specific…so I can actually deal with something? > [@](#): > > You’re not supposed to do that here in case you’re not aware of the rules. I am not supposed to have fun…I am not supposed to be ironic? That is in the rules? > [@](#): > > Still getting your rocks off? Nope. Why are you watching somehow? > [@](#): > > Which one? Whichever one you referred to. > [@](#): > > Are you going to respond to the post of mine that you skipped over or not? Wasn’t aware I skipped a post. I’ll look for 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 11, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/94 "2010-02-11T19:07:02Z")
Re-post it Fantome. I cannot find 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 11, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/95 "2010-02-11T19:08:03Z")
> [@Sandwich](#): > > Strictly speaking, if you are willing to argue at length about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, then you aren’t an agnostic or an atheist. > > Either way, there are still no gods. How do you know that? ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/96 "2010-02-11T19:08:49Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > You are really not going to trot out that a-theistic nonsense here, are you??? Yes, I will try to educate you (although I’m not sure why, as many have tried and failed) that atheism means “without theism”, and that it is thus a-theism. I’m an optimist. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > “Atheistic” didn’t come about by adding “a” to "theistic.” That’s exactly where it came from, following long-established rules of English grammar. “Apolitical”, “amoral”, and so on. What, you think that when people were trying to come up with a word to mean “without theism” they just accidentally happened to chose a word which means “without theism”? > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > all one has to do to be an atheist is to “not believe in gods.” Yep. if you don’t believe in God you are, by definition, and atheist. Because you lack theism. A-theism. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Atheistic was in the English language before theistic, actually. This is an example of why a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. A-theism comes to us from the Greek, from a + theos. A meaning without, theos meaning god. Yes, people generally just called theism “religion” and broke it up into various flavors, because the concept that one should start from the null hypothesis and falsify it rather than the conclusion and justify it was somewhat novel. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Agnostics also do not believe in gods. You can try as hard as you want to include us in your mix…and you could probably use the intellectual help…but most of us are not willing to associate with you. Yes, I realize your agenda. Because the fact that you are an atheist is unpopular, you would prefer a different word. Of course, you don’t believe in a God in exactly the same way that an atheist doesn’t, you just play silly word games. You have no belief in a God? You’re an atheist. End of story. Ya big atheist. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/97 "2010-02-11T19:09:23Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Still getting your rocks off? [Please don’t make comments like this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4749265&postcount=3) (I missed this post earlier.) Let’s discuss the arguments and not people’s motivations in making them. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/98 "2010-02-11T19:11:32Z")
I’m not going to waste anymore time with you. I should have never come back to entertain your bullshit. ---
**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, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/99 "2010-02-11T19:13:01Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, I will try to educate you (although I’m not sure why, as many have tried and failed) that atheism means “without theism”, and that it is thus a-theism. > > I’m an optimist. > > That’s exactly where it came from, following long-established rules of English grammar. “Apolitical”, “amoral”, and so on. What, you think that when people were trying to come up with a word to mean “without theism” they just accidentally happened to chose a word which means “without theism”? > > Yep. if you don’t believe in God you are, by definition, and atheist. Because you lack theism. A-theism. > > This is an example of why a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. A-theism comes to us from the Greek, from a + theos. A meaning without, theos meaning god. Yes, people generally just called theism “religion” and broke it up into various flavors, because the concept that one should start from the null hypothesis and falsify it rather than the conclusion and justify it was somewhat novel. > > Yes, I realize your agenda. Because the fact that you are an atheist is unpopular, you would prefer a different word. Of course, you don’t believe in a God in exactly the same way that an atheist doesn’t, you just play silly word games. You have no belief in a God? You’re an atheist. End of story. Ya big atheist. I’m hoping one of your fellow atheists comes along to tell you how very wrong you are on this. Short of that…I suggest you go to an etymological dictionary and see how the word came into the English language. It was not derived the way you are supposing. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/100 "2010-02-11T19:15:48Z")
I have never seen or heard of any etymology for atheism other than the one **FinnAgain** posted, **Frank apisa**. What’s your version? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=6)