# Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 336

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 15, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487/336 "2010-02-15T20:47:00Z")

</div>

> [@magellan01](#):
>
> I don’t have much time, but if I may add something.
> 
> It seems that because atheists find the notion of an invisible god silly, they think that by dialing up the silliness of that god, that the theist has to defend that proposition as equally plausible. This is, well, silly.

The god in question is invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-loving, created the universe, leaves no tangible evidence of his existence, and might just live _outside_ of the universe(wherever _that_ might be). I really can’t see how it is possible to dial up the silliness any more.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-and-agnosticism-are-not-mutually-exclusive/528487)._