# The Great "Agnostics are atheists" question! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2010, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321 "2010-02-17T13:46:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/181 "2010-02-18T15:14:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t think it does. I think it works a a broad umbrella for anyone without belief, while “ignostic,” “strong” and “weak” atheist, etc. are all subsets. This is my initial thought as well, but I’m not 100 % convinced. Mainly because the ignostic might reply with ‘what are you talking about’? In otherwords, in assessing the ignostic’s belief one would get into an atheological semantic debate. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think I would identify as an ignostic, by the way, in that I do think the word “god” has to be defined before it can be meaningfully discussed as a possibility, but I also think that most theists can proffer enough of a working definition to at least humor the discussion. I am of like mind. Although I will say that some conceptions of god I am not ignostic about - such as Zeus and such. I would be comfortable saying that they cannot exist as they have incompatible properties. As to your statement about a working definition - I’m not so sure. I think that ignostic atheological arguments often get no where because the theist assumes that since there is a shared (and completely vague) meaning between believers (by meaning, I am suggesting a secondary meaning - ie, ‘creator’) of what ‘god’ is supposed to be, that they just want to skip over the heavy mental lifting. Not all theists do this, btw. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s interesting, though, that I’ve seen in this thread what appear to be attempts to say that if you can’t define gods, then you can’t say they _don’t_ exist, which is the most vacuous kind of sophist tripe. Well, yes, it’s true that you can’t say that something incoherent _doesn’t_ exist, but really, all that means is that there has been nothing cognitively expressed to begin with. It’s like saying ‘Xublicle Transgrubals’ could exist. Great, but in order to determine the probability of their existence, you first have to come up with what is a Xublicle Transgrubal? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/182 "2010-02-18T15:19:54Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Interesting take, Meatros. I cannot answer any of your questions, but I would like to comment on the implications of some of what you wrote. > > First of all, agnostic suits me just fine. > > I do not know what the true nature of the Reality of existence IS. > > Honestly, I just have no idea of what “all this” IS. > > My guess is it is much, much more complicated and involved than puny humans can even imagine. > > To definitely rule in or out any possible component seems absurd TO ME…so I will not do it. > > Many theists think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that a god (creator and personal god) is an absolute necessity. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute necessity…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely there is a god than that there are no gods. > > Many atheists also think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that no gods of any kind exist. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute impossibility…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods. And some atheists (in my experience, just the limited few who argue and debate on the Internet) suggest that they do not even take a position of belief that no gods exist…but instead suggest that until proof of a god arises…the default is that there is no god. > > I just don’t agree. > > But I am an agnostic. You’re an atheist. The logical default presumption (take a logic class) is that X doesn’t exist unless there is some reason to believe it does exist. Your lack of literacy with the vocabulary and logical form of this kind of debate is working to your detriment. I know that makes me sound like a dick, and that’s not my intent, but I want to let you know how you’re coming off to those of us who have some exerience and formal education in these debates. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/183 "2010-02-18T15:20:38Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Interesting take, Meatros. I cannot answer any of your questions, but I would like to comment on the implications of some of what you wrote. > > First of all, agnostic suits me just fine. Great. BTW - ‘superman’ and ‘man with extremely large genitals’ suits me just find. They aren’t actually apt descriptors of me (take off the extremely, for instance), so I doubt anyone is going to use either of those to describe me. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I do not know what the true nature of the Reality of existence IS. > > Honestly, I just have no idea of what “all this” IS. I doubt anyone does know. Nor do most people claim to - not even most strong atheists. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > My guess is it is much, much more complicated and involved than puny humans can even imagine. > > To definitely rule in or out any possible component seems absurd TO ME…so I will not do it. That depends on your viewpoint as to what constitutes ‘complicated’, but I can grant you that. As to possible components - all I would argue is that we can only include coherent components into the realm of possibilities. I would argue that the conceptions of ‘god’ that I have been introduced to fail the coherency test. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Many theists think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that a god (creator and personal god) is an absolute necessity. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute necessity…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely there is a god than that there are no gods. > > Many atheists also think my take is an absurdity itself…and posit that no gods of any kind exist. Many more suggest that while it is not an absolute impossibility…”the evidence” (whatever the hell that is) indicates it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods. And some atheists (in my experience, just the limited few who argue and debate on the Internet) suggest that they do not even take a position of belief that no gods exist…but instead suggest that until proof of a god arises…the default is that there is no god. I have found that far more atheists believe that the idea of god is a possibility - they just don’t have any evidence to believe that god does exist. I disagree with them on this, but who knows - they could be right. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I just don’t agree. > > But I am an agnostic. I don’t know what you mean by that term anymore. ---
**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 18, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/184 "2010-02-18T15:26:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Nobody cares if you’re an atheist, we’re just telling you where your own self-characterization places you, and no one’s begging you for anything. Try taking basic philosphy class some time. The definitions we are using are the academic ones. I majored in Philosophy, Diogenes. The definition you are using is the one you want to use because it suits your purpose. Most academics would use the definition found in Webster’s Dictionary…or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. > [@](#): > > There is no way to provide evidenc that _anything_ doesn’t exist, so that point is a fatuous one. Really! It is not a “fatuous” point when arguing with people who call themselves atheists, because many real atheists (mostly the kind who are not arguing on the Internet) assert there are no gods. Without evidence, that really doesn’t make much sense. I don’t think I should be faulted for thinking there might be an atheist who denies the existence of gods…even without evidence. > [@](#): > > The default is simply to _presume_ non-existence absent any evdience of existence. No…the default is to simply acknowledge that we do not know. > [@](#): > > The presumption is provisional, though. It’s not a dogma. It also is not logical. > [@](#): > > I presume there are no elves, but if someone shows me an elf, I’ll believe in elves. I would hope that if someone showed you an elf, you would KNOW they exist. Why would you have to “believe” they exist? > [@](#): > > I have nothing invested in believing in the non-existence of elves. I don’t care. I’ll change my assumption given sufficient evidence. I feel the same way about sky gods. Good for you. Right now you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Is it your contention that the default should be “no sentient being exist” on any of those planets…or should a more logical position be “we do not know if any sentient beings exist on any of them?” ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/185 "2010-02-18T15:38:25Z")
**Frank**.. still waiting. > [@cmosdes](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12126034&postcount=454](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12126034&postcount=454) > > I asked you if flipping a coin 1,000,000,000 times in a row and having it come up heads every single time is evidence that the coin does not have a tails. You insisted, over and over and over that lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist. > > When you flip a coin and and get 1,000,000,000 heads in a row there is a lack of evidence that tails exists on that coin. Do you still contend that you can conclude nothing about the existence or non-existence of tails on that coin? > > Further, you replied later in that thread that you’d guess the next flip will come up heads, but this directly contradicts your position on lack of evidence. I’d like to know how you can explain the apparent contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/186 "2010-02-18T15:44:11Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Right now you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Is it your contention that the default should be “no sentient being exist” on any of those planets…or should a more logical position be “we do not know if any sentient beings exist on any of them?” The former. Both statements are too simplistic to answer a fairly complicated question with 100% accuracy, but the former is solid for most intents and purposes, while the latter is hugely misleading because it makes it sound like we have zero information on the subject. Which, in fact, is your position exactly and it’s absolutely conspiracy-theorist level insane and I can’t understand how you don’t see that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/187 "2010-02-18T15:45:18Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I majored in Philosophy, Diogenes. You should have stayed awake then…either that or get your money back. > [@](#): > > The definition you are using is the one you want to use because it suits your purpose. Most academics would use the definition found in Webster’s Dictionary…or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I can tell with absolute assurance and first hand knowledge that this is false. > [@](#): > > Really! It is not a “fatuous” point when arguing with people who call themselves atheists, because many real atheists (mostly the kind who are not arguing on the Internet) assert there are no gods. Without evidence, that really doesn’t make much sense. I don’t think I should be faulted for thinking there might be an atheist who denies the existence of gods…even without evidence. Do you think the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you think the same thing about the possibility that there are invisible, undetectable space monkeys under your bed? > [@](#): > > No…the default is to simply acknowledge that we do not know. This is flatly incorrect. I know it’s pointless to keep telling you that, but you’re wrong. Look up the words “null hypothesis” already. > [@](#): > > I would hope that if someone showed you an elf, you would KNOW they exist. Why would you have to “believe” they exist? Yes, I would “know” they exist. Is there a point to this pedantry? The point is that the default assumption is not dogmatic. It’s not the same as a religious belief. > [@](#): > > Right now you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Is it your contention that the default should be “no sentient being exist” on any of those planets…or should a more logical position be “we do not know if any sentient beings exist on any of them?” This is not a valid analogy because we do have evidence that sentient life can arise in the universe, so it’s not true that there is no evidence it might exist in other star systems. We have reason assume that the possibility exists for other life in the universe. We have no reason to assume the possibility of invisible, magic sky gods. As a matter of fact, the _prima facie_ is that the are _im_possible, since they would violate the laws of physics, and since they are (as yet) unnecessary to explain anything in the universe. It is quite reasonable and safe and logical to assume that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/188 "2010-02-18T15:49:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The definition you are using is the one you want to use because it suits your purpose. Most academics would use the definition found in Webster’s Dictionary…or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. > > I can tell with absolute assurance and first hand knowledge that this is false. This is true, just off the top of my head, the academic philosophers that I can think of that support Diogenes’ contention are: Anthony Flew George Smith Michael Martin Richard Carrier Theordore Drange With some digging, I’m sure I could think of more. ---
**Author:** ![A.Selene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ec8ea/32.png) [@A.Selene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Selene)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/189 "2010-02-18T15:55:25Z")
It seems like most of the posters here are banging their heads against a wall, but I’ll add a few bangs for shits and giggles. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Right now you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Is it your contention that the default should be “no sentient being exist” on any of those planets…or should a more logical position be “we do not know if any sentient beings exist on any of them?” Once again **Frank** , you are confusing statements of **belief** with statements of **knowledge**. Both of those above are statements of knowledge, and the default statement would be “we do not know if any sentient beings exist on any of them?”. Because we don’t know, the evidence isn’t in. But we can still make a statement of belief about it. You can make a statement of belief independent of knowledge, and in fact we do it all the time. Like I assume you are, I am agnostic about the existence of a pack of prehistoric raptors surviving in Papau New Guinea. I simply **don’t know** if they exist or not. But the lack of evidence leads me to the natural conclusion that I don’t **believe** they exist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge; theism and atheism with belief. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. **Frank** , from what you have posted throughout this thread, it seems you do not believe in gods, and don’t have any knowledge of their existence or non-existence. That’s smart; the first part of the last sentence means you are an atheist, and the second part means you are an agnostic, as I imagine most of us are here. We don’t **know** for certain, as there isn’t any evidence, but that lack of evidence leads us to **believe** gods do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/190 "2010-02-18T17:34:17Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > This is true, just off the top of my head, the academic philosophers that I can think of that support Diogenes’ contention are: > > Anthony Flew > George Smith > Michael Martin > Richard Carrier > Theordore Drange > > With some digging, I’m sure I could think of more. Yeah, but there are academics who think that every white is racist, and some that think that whatever God wants is Good, both of which go against the comon English language definition that people actually use. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/191 "2010-02-18T18:03:13Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yeah, but there are academics who think that every white is racist, and some that think that whatever God wants is Good, both of which go against the comon English language definition that people actually use. Maybe so, the point I was making is that the prominent academic philosophers in the field who are also atheists use this definition. Ie, the people who write about the material. Not someone who got a PhD in some unrelated field. Shoot, I could probably come up with a few theistic philosophers as well who use this definition. I haven’t actually come across any ‘academics’ who engage in the relevant fields who do not use the definitions in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/192 "2010-02-18T18:08:42Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yeah, but there are academics who think that every white is racist, and some that think that whatever God wants is Good, both of which go against the comon English language definition that people actually use. Nevertheless, the definitions we are using for these terms are the common, mainstream definitions used throughout academia. Hell, “agnostic” is a neologism coined by a known academic (he was actually a biologist, not a philosopher, but still, he invented the word). This is a case where his post really is his cite. ---
**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 18, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/193 "2010-02-18T19:05:37Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > The former. Both statements are too simplistic to answer a fairly complicated question with 100% accuracy, but the former is solid for most intents and purposes, while the latter is hugely misleading because it makes it sound like we have zero information on the subject. Which, in fact, is your position exactly and it’s absolutely conspiracy-theorist level insane and I can’t understand how you don’t see that. So you think saying that because we have no evidence of sentient beings existing on any of those planets… …it makes more sense to say, “No sentient beings exist there” than “We do not know?” Wow! And in another thread they are talking about how similar athesits are to theists in being unwilling to yield to logic!!! ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/194 "2010-02-18T19:11:43Z")
Well, if nothing else I see that our of these lengthy scrolls of threads **XT** has come out as an atheist. In order to properly swear him in into our tight-knit club, I have sent him a copy of my own atheist bible. It’s a blank piece of paper which makes it conveniently replaceable in case of loss – size and weight are not an issue, it simply needs to be devoid of words or graphics. So please make sure to study it well and follow its non-teachings. Till we meet again in the hell we don’t believe in. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/195 "2010-02-18T19:13:11Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > So you think saying that because we have no evidence of sentient beings existing on any of those planets… But we DO have evidence that it’s possible. That’s more than anything you can say about sky gods. Why won’t you answer any of the questions about whether there are any gods you are sure do not exist? Do you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a non-zero possibility of existence, yes or no? ---
**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 18, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/196 "2010-02-18T19:16:54Z")
Far be it from me to dispute your “logic!!!”, but considering the possibility of sentient life(which we can see examples of most any day) is a far cry from considering possibility of life that defies science and logic(which to date we have no evidence of, let alone _examples_ of.) It seems you have a problem differentiating between the probable, the possible and the impossible, but you seem to be embracing this problem. Indeed, you seem to view this problem as some sort of virtue that sets you above us. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/197 "2010-02-18T19:20:12Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > So you think saying that because we have no evidence of sentient beings existing on any of those planets… > …it makes more sense to say, “No sentient beings exist there” than “We do not know?” > Wow! > > And in another thread they are talking about how similar athesits are to theists in being unwilling to yield to logic!!! Yeah, I figured you’d like that. I am aware that from a mathematical/logical standpoint the latter statement is more correct. But you yourself have frowned on the idea that we’re talking about absolute mathematical proofs, so I’m assuming they’re meant to be practical statements. Way I see it statement one indicates a 0% chance that sentient beings exist there. Statement two indicates a very high chance, to me it implies a 50/50. While we know that life can exist, we also know that it must be _extremely_ rare (right?), so the first statement is closer to the truth by orders of magnitude. You like to flip between nitpicking tiny details one second and making broad general statements based on them the next, and I find it pretty dishonest. ---
**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 18, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/198 "2010-02-18T19:24:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You should have stayed awake then…either that or get your money back. Very cute! But I was awake…and got great marks. > [@](#): > > I can tell with absolute assurance and first hand knowledge that this is false. Really! I think you are full of yourself! > [@](#): > > Do you think the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you think the same thing about the possibility that there are invisible, undetectable space monkeys under your bed? How would my answer to this silly question impact on what is being discussed here. > [@](#): > > This is flatly incorrect. I know it’s pointless to keep telling you that, but you’re wrong. Look up the words “null hypothesis” already. No it isn’t…and the null hypothesis does not impact on its truth. Look up the false use of the null hypothesis! > [@](#): > > Yes, I would “know” they exist. Is there a point to this pedantry? The point is that the default assumption is not dogmatic. It’s not the same as a religious belief. That does not make enough sense to give a real response. > [@](#): > > This is not a valid analogy because we do have evidence that sentient life can arise in the universe, so it’s not true that there is no evidence it might exist in other star systems. We have reason assume that the possibility exists for other life in the universe. We have no reason to assume the possibility of invisible, magic sky gods. As a matter of fact, the _prima facie_ is that the are _im_possible, since they would violate the laws of physics, and since they are (as yet) unnecessary to explain anything in the universe. Nonsense. We are questioning whether lack of evidence of “x” is evidence of the non-existence of “x.” If the “x” is “are there sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol”…we know there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that there are. I suggest that the fact that we have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER on “x” IS NOT evidence that “x” does not exist…just evidence that we have no evidence. Obviously you are not yet disposed to concede this very obvious point…but that make sense to me. You are an atheist arguing the atheist perspective…and like theists arguing the theistic perspective…no concessions are made. > [@](#): > > It is quite reasonable and safe and logical to assume that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. So you are saying it is impossible for gods to exist? Are you saying that? ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/199 "2010-02-18T19:28:48Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > We are questioning whether lack of evidence of “x” is evidence of the non-existence of “x.” Please see the coin flip question. ---
**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 18, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/200 "2010-02-18T19:30:47Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > **Frank**.. still waiting. Keep waiting. I do not understand your question…if it actually is a question. Quote what I actually said rather than paraphrasing…and I will comment on why I said what I said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=11)