# Technically, is agnosticism the only valid option? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2015, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460 "2015-05-21T00:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/161 "2015-05-24T01:05:34Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Nope, because if ‘God’ IS in fact ‘Unknowable’ and there is zero evidence of him/her/it and no theoretical basis for some sort of ‘God’ (i.e. we have the math for singularities, black holes, etc) then we can say with pretty good confidence that ‘God’ doesn’t exist. We can’t, IMHO, completely rule him/her/it out, but we can relegate ‘God’ to such a low order probability as to be the next best thing to 0. If you pick a galaxy 15 bly away (and there certainly are some that far) then the existence of life in it is truly unknowable. You just didn’t think big enough. And someone submitting a paper about life in that galaxy is doing the same thing as someone telling us the desires of an unknowable god. Which is just making stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/162 "2015-05-24T01:13:20Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > For those of you who claim to be agnostic, are you equally agnostic about [all the gods on this list](http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm), or just one in particular? Of course I am. My guess would be that if there is something that constitutes “god”, then different cultures have probably described it in different ways. Kind of like how prior to scientific observation, cultures came up with all kinds of wacky explanations for what the moon is. With that in mind, I really don’t understand what people mean when they describe god, sinc e it all seems like a lot of circular references. I really doubt any religion is a bunch of people who believe the exact same thing. I think the idea of god is probably pretty different from person to person, but people fit it in to whatever organization they have some reason to belong to. Anyway, there are definitions of “god” that I think are definitely real (though these are admittedly vague and diffuse definitions) and definitions that are probably not real. I can’t really take a stance unless I know wahtt he definition of “god” being used is, in terms that actually refer to something outside of “god.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/163 "2015-05-24T01:14:46Z")
> [@Uqbar](#): > > You just ignored my example in the _SAME_ post you quoted(!) Something can be ontologically unknown, but manifest all over the place. Anyway, I’m not pulling this stuff out of thin air. Read on. Your examples demonstrate my point rather nicely. They describe different versions of an unknown and unknowable god. Various parts of the Hindu religion describe the interactions of these gods with lesser gods and with mortals. While how they created the world could be unknowable, that hardly makes them unknown and unknowable, does it? We are told an awful lot about unknowable deities. You describe several versions of unknowable gods. If there is but one god, then these contradictory descriptions show that humans really don’t know anything about it (it because it being male or female is something we know about it) and what they say is blather. Or are there several unknowable gods which humans always get right? If your point is that religions talk about unknowable gods as if they know them all the time, I certainly do not disagree. My point was not that they don’t, but that they shouldn’t. Or at least, if they do they shouldn’t expect anyone else to give their words any credence. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/164 "2015-05-24T01:31:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But I am trying to differentiate between that which we might never get the time to figure out, like some of your examples, and the pretentiousness of saying that something is “_UNKNOWABLE_”, that this particular piece of knowledge is blocked off from mankind by mystical decree or something. What was the first word out of Julius Caesar’s mouth on his fifteenth birthday? This is unknowable. We are blocked off from this knowledge because we are (probably) permanently prevented from observing the past. I don’t know if being trapped in forward-moving time is exactly “mystical”, but it’s definitely pretty out-there. I have no reason to believe there aren’t other types of things we just plain can’t observe for structural reasons. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/165 "2015-05-24T02:35:27Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > What was the first word out of Julius Caesar’s mouth on his fifteenth birthday? > > This is unknowable. We are blocked off from this knowledge because we are (probably) permanently prevented from observing the past. I don’t know if being trapped in forward-moving time is exactly “mystical”, but it’s definitely pretty out-there. > > I have no reason to believe there aren’t other types of things we just plain can’t observe for structural reasons. Do you know what one word in your argument pokes a big hole in it? “Probably”. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/166 "2015-05-24T03:57:40Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > How do you figure that I would be to the majority of gods, because I do believe in their existences, all of them, and they make life exciting, like what good is having humanity of you can’t have a bunch of gods on Mt Olympus throwing lighting bolts, giving us gifts of technology and procreating with our women - pretty boring I’d say. I’m pretty confident that excitingness and boringness aren’t components of the existence of things. It’s more exciting to think that the President was born in Kenya and via some elaborate conspiracy was able to fool everyone into thinking he was born in the USA, but that don’t make it the trurth. But to take you at your word that you believe in all gods, but have chosen to disregard all the requisite demands that they have of you, then one must assume that you’re ignoring the demands because: 1. Even though many of those gods threaten to punish you if you don’t follow their demands, the big G is protecting you, hence even though they do exist, you aren’t maimed, cursed, and having a poor harvest this year. Or… 1. All of the demands and whatnot were just lies to begin with. None of these gods really had powers. Might I ask which of these two is your personal flavor? Or is there some third that I haven’t considered? ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/167 "2015-05-24T04:07:55Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Causality is bunk for radioactive decay Yes, but the outcome is not, nor is the average rate of decay. Saying “I don’t know exactly when that cesium atom will decay, or which of the possible products will form” is not the same as “I know nothing about it, and for all I know, a purple unicorn is about to appear where the cesium atom was” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/168 "2015-05-24T07:34:57Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Nope, because if ‘God’ IS in fact ‘Unknowable’ and there is zero evidence of him/her/it and no theoretical basis for some sort of ‘God’ (i.e. we have the math for singularities, black holes, etc) then we can say with pretty good confidence that ‘God’ doesn’t exist. We can’t, IMHO, completely rule him/her/it out, but we can relegate ‘God’ to such a low order probability as to be the next best thing to 0. I’ve tried to refute this “evidence” angle before, and with due acknowledgment to those who have produced counter-arguments, I still say the onus is on the denier to state what attributes this God is supposed to have and what evidence is therefore expected. This may be possible or even very easy with respect to specifically described gods of most religions and mythologies, but not with the concept of God in general. Suppose, for instance, I were to define “God” as being the entity that creates universes and sets their laws in motion, but exists outside those universes and does not interact with them. What evidence of such a God would you expect to see? There may indeed be such detectable evidence, but not with our present state of technology. Nor is it a meaningless question, and serious science has tried to grapple with it. > [@Uqbar](#): > > … To address the OP: the agnostic OP implies the conditional, “If god exists, then how do I know…”. As agreed abv, we need definitions of god. And as the conditional implies these must come from established religions (the OP says nothing about arbitrary homebrewed versions, opinions–ie the thread was about agnosticism, and the agnostics need to deal with definitions from organized religion in order to decide; the alternative is simple: nonbelief) … Can’t really argue with that. But ISTM that many atheists combine a specific definition of the term (denial of God) with traditional religions’ definition of what God is, often the Christian one, and proudly wear the label because to them, what it means is “I don’t believe in superstitious nonsense”. That’s fine with me if that’s all it means, but my objections begin when it starts to go further – when it starts to argue for the absolute supremacy of science, the alleged uselessness of philosophy, and the non-existence of _any_ kind of God, however it might defined. I like the term “agnostic” because, unlike “atheist”, it doesn’t have these potentially strident implications and, most importantly, is not at risk of turning into its own belief system and creating its own cadre of crusaders. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/169 "2015-05-24T09:43:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m not conflating anything. Here, let me help un-confuse you: Oh, goody, a mainstream dictionary definition, that always clears things up in technical discussions … :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > [determinism](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determinism): _n._ a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena **are causally determined** by preceding events or natural laws Yep, like I suspected - no grasp of the _difference_ between causality and determinism. You understand that “related” and “conflated” are not synonymous, right? And that there isn’t really a rational basis to retain that kind of nomological dogmatism in a post-QM worldview. > [@](#): > > P.S.- I’m glad you’re getting so much mileage out of my idiomatic use of a common expression, though what that has to do with an argument about religion and physics I’ll never know. It shows your (lack of) grasp of the terms of art of Logic, and intimately-bound part of any philosophical discussion. > [@](#): > > If I say “I could care less” about it I wonder if that helps illustrate a point about language? “Caring less” isn’t a term of art. “Begging the question” is. > [@](#): > > And if I pull the lever on a slot machine it is _impossible_ to predict the resulting outcome. I was unaware that slot machines had radioactive-decay-based random number generators at their heart. Otherwise, I have no idea why you would use the word “impossible” here, when the words that apply are just “[very, very hard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine#Random_number_generators)” > [@](#): > > It is, to my perception, entirely random What makes you think your, or anyone’s _perception_, is the issue here? When I say radioactive decay and vacuum fluctuations are random, I mean _they are_, not they are _from any limited perspective_. Completely unlike anything as materially gross as a slot machine. > [@](#): > > True, you didn’t, but your pal Lawrence Krauss is always going on about it in support of the same arguments against both philosophy and religion. So argue with Krauss, who isn’t in this thread and whom I’ve never cited or even mentioned before. Hell, that isn’t even attacking a strawman, at least then you’d be distorting my own words. This is attacking an _invisible_ strawman only **wolfpup** can see. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/170 "2015-05-24T09:50:51Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > What was the first word out of Julius Caesar’s mouth on his fifteenth birthday? > > This is unknowable. To us as present individuals. But I can think of at least one human being who must have known. So not _absolutely_ unknow_able_. Just unknow_n_. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/171 "2015-05-24T09:56:45Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Yes You can stop there, the rest is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > , but the outcome is not, nor is the average rate of decay. Irrelevant. Causality being broken is sufficient to make a mockery of the Argument from First Cause. Which was my point. > [@](#): > > Saying “I don’t know exactly when that cesium atom will decay, or which of the possible products will form” is not the same as “I know nothing about it, and for all I know, a purple unicorn is about to appear where the cesium atom was” Strawman. At no point have I said “Causality being broken means Anything is Possible” ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/172 "2015-05-24T12:08:47Z")
> [@velomont](#): > > In general we have theism, atheism and agnosticism. I think that, technically, the only valid choice is agnosticism. The reason I think this is that, notwithstanding the strength of one’s belief, no-one really knows whether or not there is a god. This. You nailed it right there. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/173 "2015-05-24T12:15:39Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > This. You nailed it right there. We also can’t rule out the Easter Bunny 100%, right? Would you be wiling to tell your friends and family that you are agnostic as to whether the Easter Bunny exists? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/174 "2015-05-24T17:13:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Oh, goody, a mainstream dictionary definition, that always clears things up in technical discussions … :rolleyes: > > … Yep, like I suspected - no grasp of the _difference_ between causality and determinism. You understand that “related” and “conflated” are not synonymous, right? You are really and truly grasping at straws now, which I suppose is OK because with all the strawmen you’ve built you’ve got lots of it! 😉 At no point did I claim that causality and determinism were “the same thing”. When I refer to determinism in this discussion, I refer to the area of philosophical inquiry often called _causal determinism_, [usefully defined as follows](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism): Determinism often is taken to mean _causal determinism_, which in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are **bound by causality** in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states. I trust that this will end these spurious attempts to misrepresent what I’m saying. To further clarify: the salient question about radioactive decay here is, in logical terms, whether it is _irreducibly probabilistic_ – a mere matter of chance independent of an underlying causality. To be sure, the question about radioactive decay is at the intersection of science and philosophy and involves a lot of yet-unresolved questions about QM. But you’ve introduced it as supposed irrefutable evidence, not just about the nature of this single issue, but as evidence for a hugely broad, sweeping claim that “causality is a fiction”. It not only isn’t any such thing, your whole argument leading up to this philosophical blockbuster is entirely without substance. At best this is a logical confusion about the nature of unknowability or causality or both, and is just playing with words. There many facts and hypotheses that counter that silly argument, notably including the De Broglie-Bohm theory or Bohmian QM, which extends Schrodinger’s equation for quantum evolution to a deterministic physical model, such that it’s also been called the “causal interpretation” of QM\*. Or just the plain facts that atoms exhibit exceedingly complex dynamic processes that we have yet to be able to model, or that the nucleons of different elements have different binding energies which are accurately known but whose causes and distribution are not understood. There is, IOW, a very large amount of systematic stuff going on within the atomic structure which leads to the observational result that different radioactive elements have radically different decay rates, yet each element has a unique half-life that can be reliably measured to a high degree of accuracy. To suggest that there is no causality here is the nadir of absurdity, implying that atoms decay due to magic rather than a physical process. > [@MrDibble](#): > > I was unaware that slot machines had radioactive-decay-based random number generators at their heart. Otherwise, I have no idea why you would use the word “impossible” here, when the words that apply are just “very, very hard” > > What makes you think your, or anyone’s _perception_, is the issue here? When I say radioactive decay and vacuum fluctuations are random, I mean _they are_, not they are _from any limited perspective_. Completely unlike anything as materially gross as a slot machine. You seem to have a hard time with the concept of analogies, too. Explaining how slot machines work is irrelevant to my perception of it as a black box, and my perception _is entirely relevant_ within the confines of the analogy because it parallels our black-box perception of radioactive decay. And you cannot arbitrarily say “they are” as distinct from “what we have so far been able to empirically deduce about them”. * * * - These dumbass theoretical physicists and philosophers appear to be just as “confused” as I am about causality and determinism! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/175 "2015-05-24T18:04:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You are really and truly grasping at straws now, which I suppose is OK because with all the strawmen you’ve built you’ve got lots of it! I’ve had no need of building any, I can just reach over to your side of the argument to find all the straw I need… > [@](#): > > When I refer to determinism in this discussion, I refer to the area of philosophical inquiry often called _causal determinism_, [usefully defined as follows](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism): Yeah, you know when you should have realized I don’t need you quoting Wiki definitions at me? The post up above where I mentioned the datedness of nomological dogma. It would have saved you from posting a link to an article that includes the sentence I bolded below: > [@](#): > > Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events. \*\*Quantum mechanics and various interpretations thereof pose a serious challenge to this view. \*\* > [@](#): > > To further clarify: the salient question about radioactive decay here is, in logical terms, whether it is _irreducibly probabilistic_ No, that’s about as “salient” as irreducible complexity is to evolutionary debate. Just as made-up a term, too. > [@](#): > > There many facts and hypotheses that counter that silly argument, notably including the De Broglie-Bohm theory or Bohmian QM “Silly” is a word I’d reserve for treating magic nonlocal spooky action at a distance QM theories as though they were mainstream. And make up your frigging mind - _either_ De Broglie-Bohm _or_ Copenhagen can be valid, not both. So don’t use one in one post and then the other in the next. It just gives me the impression you’re Wiki-trawling the QM articles for ammunition rather than building a coherent argument. > [@](#): > > To suggest that there is no causality here is the nadir of absurdity, implying that atoms decay due to magic rather than a physical process. “Why atoms decay” isn’t the question. “Why does a particular atom decay when it does?” is the question, and that is truly a random process. Unless you want to overturn all of QM now? > [@](#): > > […]my perception of it […]my perception _is entirely relevant_ No, it isn’t. The thing either is or isn’t random. Your perceptions are, and will remain, irrelevant. Better knowledge won’t let you predict a radioactive decay or a vacuum fluctuation, ever. And still waiting for that “rational, scientifically-compatible” definition of God you said was possible. Note - not a single property of this God, like “God is transcendent”, but a full definition - it’s already been said by another that one can’t take a single property like ineffability and make that the whole of the definition (which I agree with, which was why I was pointing out the absurdity of it). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/176 "2015-05-24T20:25:34Z")
I was – and to some extent still am – enjoying this, but it really is getting a bit tiring. I’ll try to keep this short by just responding briefly to the most outrageous points. > [@MrDibble](#): > > “Silly” is a word I’d reserve for treating magic nonlocal spooky action at a distance QM theories as though they were mainstream. Ah, “magical nonlocal spooky action at a distance”! Wooooo!!! Oh, you mean quantum entanglement? Ask any theoretical physicist whether it’s woo, or better still, ask anyone building a quantum computer. > [@MrDibble](#): > > And make up your frigging mind - _either_ De Broglie-Bohm _or_ Copenhagen can be valid, not both. So don’t use one in one post and then the other in the next. It just gives me the impression you’re Wiki-trawling the QM articles for ammunition rather than building a coherent argument. WTF are you talking about? I made a semi-facetious mention of “Schrodinger’s illustrious cat” and you apparently thought you could score major debating points or something by pointing out that Schrodinger was ridiculing QM concepts that were revolutionary at the time like quantum superposition. And I replied that those concepts are widely accepted now so I didn’t know WTF you were talking about then, either, and that the Copenhagen interpretation was the standard example of that fact. I’m not here to promote either Copenhagen or De Broglie-Bohm and for all I know they’re probably both wrong. I did, however, specifically bring up De Broglie-Bohm because of its deterministic model, its acceptance, and its experimental success. What is quite impressive about it is that under conditions of quantum equilibrium it’s empirically exactly equivalent to Copenhagen. Also impressive is that this “non-mainstream” idea (your words) was defended by no less than John Bell, he of the Bell Theorem fame _which was based on it_, and its predictions are fully consistent with experimental results. > [@MrDibble](#): > > “Why atoms decay” isn’t the question. “Why does a particular atom decay when it does?” is the question, and that is truly a random process. They are the same question. > [@MrDibble](#): > > And still waiting for that “rational, scientifically-compatible” definition of God you said was possible. I’ve implicitly provided several. One explicit example is provided [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18387069&postcount=168). ---
**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:** [May 24, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/177 "2015-05-24T21:12:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ve implicitly provided several. One explicit example is provided [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18387069&postcount=168). And that’s a handwave, not an answer. My answer to that is that I am an atheist to the undescribed god, for it has no meaning. Now, if you want to give me the attributes of your particular god… ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/178 "2015-05-24T21:42:58Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And that’s a handwave, not an answer. My answer to that is that I am an atheist to the undescribed god… So you’re this guy: 😃 [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/4v3etuIw-aM/hqdefault.jpg "I'm Against It - Groucho and Zeppo Marx - Horse Feathers (1932)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM) ---
**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:** [May 24, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/179 "2015-05-24T22:03:39Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you’re this guy: 😃 > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM) Cute insult, but, no. When you ask me if I believe in “god” but refuse to describe said “god”, it is the same as asking me if I believe in “blarthingskaff”. If you can’t be bothered to give me the details, I can’t be bothered. Period. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2015, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460/180 "2015-05-24T22:23:27Z")
No insult intended, and I hope you enjoyed the clip! 🙂 I can’t give you any more details because I don’t have any. That’s the whole point of being “agnostic”, IMHO: it doesn’t close any doors, it doesn’t make any claims, and – from a societal standpoint – it doesn’t proselytize. Not saying that you do, and I’m sure you don’t, but some do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technically-is-agnosticism-the-only-valid-option/720460.md?page=10)