# 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:** 6
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/101 "2010-02-11T19:17:15Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > How do you know that? By definition. If you asign any non-trival meaning to the term ‘gods’ then the phrase “there are no gods” is true. If you assign the meaning ‘cows’ to ‘gods’ (as many people do) then I grant you that the phrase “there are no gods” is false. If you assign the meaning ‘a real entity which has no characteristics other than we don’t know anything about it’ to the phrase ‘there are no gods’ (as many people seem to do on the SDMB remarkably frequently) then the phrase is also false. I struggle to care in that case. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/102 "2010-02-11T19:17:30Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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. And I suggest you look in _any_ dictionary and see how it is _currently_ defined. Seizing upon an archaic definition is just a cheap trick. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/103 "2010-02-11T19:19:36Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > II suggest you go to an etymological dictionary and see how the word came into the English language. [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology) (just for the hell of it) ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/104 "2010-02-11T19:19:54Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I’m hoping one of your fellow atheists comes along to tell you how very wrong you are on this. Well, as you’re a fellow atheist and you’re trying to tell me I’m wrong, I guess that already happened. Of course, you’re still wrong, but ah well. This is what I meant about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, it generally helps to have a general understanding of what you’re talking about before you find a tidbit and declare victory. The etymology is actually very simple. [ > [@](#): > > Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god ]([ATHEISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)) You want an etymological dictionary in specific (although of course you don’t cite one), okay… [ > [@](#): > > atheist > 1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos “to deny the gods, godless,” from a- “without” + theos “a god” (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo “atheist.” ]([Atheist - Etymology, Origin & Meaning](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist)) Gee, fancy that, you’re still wrong. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > It was not derived the way you are supposing. Actually, it was derived exactly as I correct stated. Ya big atheist. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/105 "2010-02-11T19:23:13Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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. In other words, you have no way to refute the point being made, so you try to make it go away by acting dismissive. From an epistemological perspective, WHY are invisible pink bunnies different from God? What justification do you have for treating them differently? Consider these two statements: “Invisible pink bunnies exist.” “God exists.” Both of these statements make ontological claims. These ontological claims may be true or false. As an agnostic, you’re unwilling to assign a truth value to the second statement. But you seem to have no trouble at all assigning a truth value to the first. What justification do you have for making that distinction? One of the appealing features of atheism is that allows for the application of the same epistemological standard to all hypotheticals. ---
**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, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/106 "2010-02-11T19:42:20Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Right. And the theists keep telling me that simple common sense will tell me that a god has to exist. Present theistic evidence that would lead to such a conclusion. > [@](#): > > \*Under any circumstances I was not discussing man-made gods. - I see. We’re discussing the possible existence of “blank” where blank, an ethereal concept with no distinguishing characteristics, can be said to exist or not. And further, whether it qualifies as a “god.” And this exercise in futility, if indulged in, gets us exactly _where_? > [@](#): > > \*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. - [ul] [li]What is “Reality of Existence” and how does it pertain to this discussion?[/li][li]Define these “gods” that may exist beyond a mere intellectual concept. [/li][li]What particular knowledge, as pertains to this topic, eludes some of us?[/li][li]Name names. IOW, who are these individuals who posses knowledge beyond your grasp.[/li][/ul] > [@](#): > > _I suspect that definition is the result of a lazy lexicographer._ Nope. You’re going to run into the same problem pretty much everywhere the term is used. [Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) There it is yet again. A claim of certain knowledge about the impossibility of gaining certain knowledge. So how can you possibly know you’re right in making it if you’re also saying it is impossible to reach said conclusion? Huxley, you have a problem. > [@](#): > > _So like I said…take your problem up with the Free Dictionary._ I am not the one with the problem… ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/107 "2010-02-11T19:44:36Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Nope. We usually have no trouble discussing religion and belief on these boards because of the word “God”. The same can’t be said when we use the word “agnostic”. Really?, because every thread I’ve been in (and I haven’t been in threads for a while) people don’t agree with my definition of God either. Atheists on this board want to define God with the attributes Christians tend to give him. Not those of someone who is Shamastic, Deist or Animist or even someone who is polytheistic. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/108 "2010-02-11T19:45:20Z")
This thread has the comedic potential to come somewhat close to the recent **Mister Obvious** thread, although I don’t think it can really challenge that one. I do wonder, of course, if **Frank** ’s method can be exported to other silly bits of memetic wrangling. > [@](#): > > In news today, a schism has appeared in the American homosexual community. A new group calling themselves non-vaginaists have declared that they no longer wish to be associated with the word “homosexual” and they have severed all ties with the American gay community. > > When asked if they still plan on having sex with other men and not having sex with women, they stated that yes, that was the plan. When asked what the difference was between them and gay men, their spokesman responded: “They’re so strident. We don’t want to be associated with them. By using the term non-vaginaists, we show that we’re hipper, cooler, smarter and much more with it. Besides, you’re totally wrong about the etymology, homosexual doesn’t mean a sexual attraction to the same sex.” Film at 11 ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/109 "2010-02-11T19:58:15Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Really?, because every thread I’ve been in (and I haven’t been in threads for a while) people don’t agree with my definition of God either. I didn’t say most people agree with your definition of God. I said, _“We usually have no trouble discussing religion and belief on these boards because of the word “God.””_ That is true. We know people have belief in different gods and it’s almost never difficult to discuss religion, specific religions, theism, etc. because of the word. The same can’t be said when there’s a discussion of agnosticism. It’s difficult to know what one means when he says he’s an agnostic because of reasons I already brought up, such as different definitions and then casual and strict definitions of what it means to know’ something. > [@](#): > > Atheists on this board want to define God with the attributes Christians tend to give him. Not those of someone who is Shamastic, Deist or Animist or even someone who is polytheistic. I don’t recall atheists wanting to do any such thing. It’s true when talking to religious people on this board, we’re usually talking about the Christian/Judaic/Islamic type God, especially when the ‘g’ is capitalized. If not, the person that brought the a god that is shamanistic. polytheistic, etc. usually won’t capitalize it and there’s no confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/110 "2010-02-11T20:07:10Z")
Well, I haven’t been involved in God discussions here lately, because the lack of acknowledgment of god as a concept other than the omnipotent omnipresent personified God was severely lacking…but that would be before your join date. Most of the discussions around here back then were waylaid by atheist patting themselves on the back for the lack of foolish belief. Not being remotely Judeo-Christian in belief (although culturally I’m certainly Christian), they didn’t apply to me. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/111 "2010-02-11T20:11:12Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Most of the discussions around here back then were waylaid by atheist patting themselves on the back for the lack of foolish belief. If you say so. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/112 "2010-02-11T20:22:02Z")
Here’s about 3,700 gods I certainly don’t believe in: [**Welcome to Godchecker - your Guide to the Gods**](http://www.godchecker.com/) I am now going to ask **Frank apisa** to present some that aren’t on that list that I should consider and why. Thanks in advance. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/113 "2010-02-11T20:30:38Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Well, I haven’t been involved in God discussions here lately, because the lack of acknowledgment of god as a concept other than the omnipotent omnipresent personified God was severely lacking…but that would be before your join date. Most of the discussions around here back then were waylaid by atheist patting themselves on the back for the lack of foolish belief. Not being remotely Judeo-Christian in belief (although culturally I’m certainly Christian), they didn’t apply to me. So let me get this straight. Some people believe in a Judeo-Christian god whose existence is unknowable. But you reject the belief that _that_ god is unknowable, to instead be not sure if you don’t believe in _another_ form of god which is also unknowable. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/114 "2010-02-11T23:42:18Z")
> [@Lanzy](#): > > Atheists and Theists answer the same question with a certainty neither can prove. Well, that’s a bold statement. And an incorrect one, I would submit. By now, we know enough to say without reservation that God ain’t. ---
**Author:** ![TheFatKid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@TheFatKid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheFatKid)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/115 "2010-02-11T23:49:16Z")
But back to the OP proper, I find it amazing we’ve gone 3 pages now. It’s pretty simple, really. If, like me, you understand that there is no God or gods, then you are an atheist, but not agnostic. If you think God might be real, but you don’t know, then you’re an agnostic, but not an atheist. And if you’re of the opinion that it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists, but you don’t happen to hold any belief in God (perhaps you just never think about it) then I reckon you’re both. I don’t understand what all the dust-up is about here. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/116 "2010-02-12T00:09:10Z")
The problem with trying to define atheism as a simple lack of belief is that belief doesn’t work that way. A binary 100% vs 0% belief system is only useful for talking about purely logical systems. In reality, you may accept something or act as though something is true temporarily, because it is the best you have at the time, while being open to the possibility that it will later need to be clarified or changed completely. Other than your own existence in some form, there is nothing that can reach 100% certainty. One may believe that god is the best explanation currently available for phenomenon they have experienced, while being open to the possibility that a better explanation may come along. Or one may believe that god only has a 25% chance of existing, but still pray in the hopes that he does. “Lack of belief” is not even a well defined idea when applied to god. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/117 "2010-02-12T00:14:02Z")
> [@TheFatKid](#): > > But back to the OP proper, I find it amazing we’ve gone 3 pages now. > > It’s pretty simple, really. > > If, like me, you understand that there is no God or gods, then you are an atheist, but not agnostic. > > If you think God might be real, but you don’t know, then you’re an agnostic, but not an atheist. > > And if you’re of the opinion that it’s impossible to know whether or not God exists, but you don’t happen to hold any belief in God (perhaps you just never think about it) then I reckon you’re both. > > I don’t understand what all the dust-up is about here. I think the problem comes when atheists are told that there is something unique about the God hypothesis that makes it necessary to accept the premise that it might, just, possibly be true, when that same criterion is not applied to the infinite number of other things that may or may not exist. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/118 "2010-02-12T00:17:36Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > The problem with trying to define atheism as a simple lack of belief is that belief doesn’t work that way. > > A binary 100% vs 0% belief system is only useful for talking about purely logical systems. > > In reality, you may accept something or act as though something is true temporarily, because it is the best you have at the time, while being open to the possibility that it will later need to be clarified or changed completely. Other than your own existence in some form, there is nothing that can reach 100% certainty. > > One may believe that god is the best explanation currently available for phenomenon they have experienced, while being open to the possibility that a better explanation may come along. Or one may believe that god only has a 25% chance of existing, but still pray in the hopes that he does. > > “Lack of belief” is not even a well defined idea when applied to god. I’m confused. Why is “lack of belief” not a well defined idea when applied to god? What is it about the god hypothesis vs the hypothesis that aliens have visited the earth, or that apples might fall up tomorrow, or that someone comes into my house every night and replaces all my things with identical things? ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/119 "2010-02-12T00:27:36Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I’m confused. Why is “lack of belief” not a well defined idea when applied to god? What is it about the god hypothesis vs the hypothesis that aliens have visited the earth, or that apples might fall up tomorrow, or that someone comes into my house every night and replaces all my things with identical things? It does not make sense until you explain what belief system you are using. In the context of a binary belief system it does not make sense. In the context of some other belief system, it may well make sense. Indeed, under a certain graded belief system you might define an atheist as someone to whom the question of whether god exists is no different than the question of whether apples will fall up tomorrow. “Lack of belief” makes sense there. But then, someone to whom the god hypothesis did seem fundamentally different would not qualify as an atheist, even if they were far from certain god existed. ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/120 "2010-02-12T00:35:22Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I think the problem comes when atheists are told that there is something unique about the God hypothesis that makes it necessary to accept the premise that it might, just, possibly be true, when that same criterion is not applied to the infinite number of other things that may or may not exist. Yes, this, precisely. It is not considered unreasonable to say “Santa Claus does not really exist,” but somehow “God does not really exist” is different. As far as I can tell, this is because very few adults have an emotional investment in believing in Santa Claus; but of course this doesn’t speak to any quality of the hypothesis itself. But I think it’s mainly that emotional and social reality that creates the vague and wishy-washy middle ground that some people call agnosticism. Every sensible person will admit that, in an absolute sense, it is possible for the things they know or believe to turn out to be incorrect or imperfect. It’s just that with an emotionally-charged subject like the existence of a god or gods, some people feel more pressure to emphasize that possibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487.md?page=7)