# 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:** 6
**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 17, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/101 "2010-02-17T21:36:31Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Correct. And the idea that “without Gods” means an active disbelief is just silly. And he’s just showing, again, that he doesn’t understand linguistics when he sees and/or discusses the very proof that rebuts his claims and doesn’t even understand why he’s wrong. The ancient Greek constructed the word via (a- + theo) meaning without gods/godless. Some time later it began to mean an active denial of the gods. The French adopted it by the same grammatical process a- mated to a word derived from theo, a- + theo +isme. English then adopted it from French and kept the same grammatical structure. A- + theo + ism. Obviously I have a better grasp of the process than you, Finn. Listen to what you are saying here! The word came from the Greek meaning without gods. It means godless. It doesn’t mean “lacking a belief in gods.” It has always meant an active denial of deities. Agnostics do NOT have an active denial of deities. We acknowledge freely that we do not know if they exist or not. What is it with you people? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/102 "2010-02-17T21:39:32Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am saying that I do not deny the existence of gods…and I do not “believe” there are no gods. > > I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE GODS OR NOT. I am an agnostic. > > How many times do I have to type those words for you to finally get them? You don’t know -\> agnostic. Fine. But you keep claiming both ’ I do not “believe” there are no gods. ’ and ’ I do not “believe” there are gods. ’ If you believe those two statements are compatible, then you are an atheist, since you don’t believe there are gods. If what you actually mean is “I can’t make up my mind WHAT I believe”, then you may not be an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/103 "2010-02-17T21:42:19Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > No I do not. You people are the ones with the difference of opinion from what seems to me to be the majority of people. If I were to present my take on matters to almost anyone in the English speaking world (with the exception of debating atheists) I would say the overwhelming number of them would call me an agnostic. And almost none of them would add a qualifier of agnostic atheist. Most people, except for debating atheists, think atheism means what it has meant from classical times on (except for very recently)…which is, someone who denies the existence of deities. No offense, but i don’t actually believe you here. Further, this reminds me of the idea that the early romans had about Christians being polytheistic cannibals. Why are you accepting the outsider’s opinion (_if_ correct), instead of the actual people? As to the majority of the people (_if_ correct), it seems they don’t actually know that agnostic refers to knowledge, not belief. So what though? If the majority of the people thought that the Amish were what all Christians were, would that make them correct? > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I know that is tough for you to accept, but it is so. In fact, I know some non-debating atheists who would laugh at you people for pretending to be atheists. By now, you should realize that the only reason atheists ever use that “weak” qualifier is so that they do not have to defend their true perspective in debate. Most real atheists find you people amusing. Sorry, I’m _agnostic_ to this particular fact of yours. Seems that the people you know don’t really know what they are talking about - especially since they’d ‘laugh’ when discussing the definitions of words. As to the weak qualifier, I’m sorry, but this is nonsense and I suspect you don’t have a lot of experience with atheological debates. Propositions get debated, and if the proposition is that god exists, then that’s what is debated. If it’s that god doesn’t exist, then that is what is debated. What is a ‘real’ atheist? You seem to have many misconceptions here. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > All I am saying about my agnosticism is that it means I do not know the answer to the question of whether or not there are gods…and that I do not have enough evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess. I can tell that you just can’t admit that you are incorrect here. You have repeatedly dodged my question - this evasion is telling. I’ll ask again: Do you believe in god/s? Saying you don’t know if they exist doesn’t answer this question - since the question is about **YOUR BELIEF** , not whether you _know_. I suspect you will once again dodge my question. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I think the atheists on this site are trying to say that I am an atheist also. I am not. Why you people have to keep insisting that I am is beyond me. You are an atheist. They don’t mean it as an insult, just a descriptor. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Actually…I’ve cited dictionary definitions using my definition. Decent dictionaries. I am not redefining the word…you people are…because it serves your purposes. Otherwise, you would use the definition most atheists not debating use—the definition that has been used throughout history—and the definition most congruent with the etymology of the word. That definition, by the way is “without gods”…denying that there are deities. You are redefining the word and being ‘careful’ about your redefinition. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Agnostics do not do that…so the only way you can demand that we be part of you people…is to define the word in the way you are insisting on doing. This is nonsense. Please list the agnostics who ‘do not do that’. Seriously, ‘agnosticism’ is not a position on belief. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Wow…this was a mess! I agree. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as it has existed throughout history until just a few years ago, actually. I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as its etymology indicates. I do not meet the requirements of “atheism” as defined by Webster’s Dictionary. Actually this isn’t true at all. Shoot, 20 years ago George Smith argued this way. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > So where do you come off saying that I do? Because you know you do - which is why you won’t directly answer my question. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > But you are the one pretending that I meet the “requirements” of atheism…when I don’t! Nonsense - you and this litany of unnamed agnostics and others who debate with atheists are the only ones that are pretending you don’t. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I do not “believe” in any gods. Then you are an atheist. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I do not “believe” there are no gods. Then you are a (confused) theist. You are illogically holding to two different beliefs. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The fact that I do not “believe” there are NO GODS…does not make me a theist…and the fact that I do not “believe” in any gods does not make me an atheist. You are arguing that A=~A Your position is incoherent. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am an agnostic. Yes, we know - but do you believe in god/s existence? > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I know how disappointed you all are that I will not be one of you…but you have got to pull yourselves together and just accept it. I don’t really care, to be honest. I find it puzzling how you can hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs YET insist everyone else is incorrect. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > You are right…your memory does not serve you on this. > > From the On-Line Etymological dictionary: > > 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.” Um…Are you serious on this or are you just trying to be funny? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/104 "2010-02-17T21:43:23Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The word came from the Greek meaning without gods. It means godless. It doesn’t mean “lacking a belief in gods.” I’m not greek and neither are you. > [@](#): > > It has always meant an active denial of deities. At least since 1913 it has not. As I have cited twice already in this thread. And you ignored both posts. > [@](#): > > Agnostics do NOT have an active denial of deities. Even if that’s true, and it’s not, so what? > [@](#): > > We acknowledge freely that we do not know if they exist or not. So do the vast majority of atheists. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/105 "2010-02-17T21:47:14Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am saying that I do not deny the existence of gods…and I do not “believe” there are no gods. Not accepting is denying. Will you please not skip over post #86? I asked you questions there I’d like you to answer. > [@](#): > > I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE GODS OR NOT. I am an agnostic. > > How many times do I have to type those words for you to finally get them? I got them a long time ago. We’re not talking about what you _know_ but about what you do or do not _believe_. ---
**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 17, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/106 "2010-02-17T21:48:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Wait, we’re doing this _again_? What was wrong with the other thread on this exact subject? Nothing was wrong with it…I just wanted to see if I could get new people involved in the issue. But one of the monitors has instructed me that I am not allowed to open other discussions on this issue…so the lack of freedom to do so will protect you from having to endure any more of them from me. > [@](#): > > You don’t believe in any gods? Then you’re an atheist. No I am not. I am an agnostic! > [@](#): > > Whether you “believe” there are no gods is irrelevent. Only because you want it to be…not because of any intrinsic values of the statement. I do not believe there are no gods…and the theists at least have enough sense not to suggest that by virtue of that, I am a de facto theist! Good for them. > [@](#): > > Of course, you’re not going to listen to that, because you have no interest in what the definitions of the words actually _are_. Well I can take your word for what the word “atheist” means…or I can take the definition from Webster’s Dictionary or from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Can you suggest why I should accept your definition over theirs? > [@](#): > > You’re in here prosteletizing (sic) about what you _wish_ they were. I AM doing some proselytizing here…for sanity, logic, and reason. Not for any religion. Not having much luck, I’ll give you that. But I am working with atheists, so you gotta give me some slack. > [@](#): > > Which in a way is okay - this is the forum for witnessing about things that you believe are true but aren’t. Thing is, it’s also the forum for persons who know better to tell you that you’re getting any less wrong, no matter _how_ often you repeat it. > > Do you seriously expect to get any converts to your way of defining? Beyond the handful who’ve been agreeing with you from the start, that is. I certainly will not get agreement from the atheists here. It’s like arguing with theists over their beliefs…and beliefs will always take precedence over logic and reason with atheists and theists. Thank you for your comments. ---
**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 17, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/107 "2010-02-17T21:50:38Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Um…Are you serious on this or are you just trying to be funny? Fallacy of the excluded middle 😉 ---
**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 17, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/108 "2010-02-17T21:51:32Z")
This is a waste of time at this point. The OP is not going to accept correction, he’s never going to get people to accept his own inaccurate, self-serving definitions and he’s never going to get the big fight with those god-denying, tomato can atheists that he wants. Everyone is just spinning their wheels. This is never going to go anywhere. Other than the definition of “atheism,” I’m not even sure what he thinks he disagrees with his fellow atheists about. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/109 "2010-02-17T21:56:26Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Nothing was wrong with it…I just wanted to see if I could get new people involved in the issue. > > But one of the monitors has instructed me that I am not allowed to open other discussions on this issue…so the lack of freedom to do so will protect you from having to endure any more of them from me. You have posted _exhaustively_ on this topic in a bunch of threads, including “Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive,” and “Atheism is a religion!” and “Believers: How do we know that the Bible is God’s word?” Which is allowed. You can continue repeating yourself if you want. All I did was ask you not to start _another_ thread about it. To which I will add that you shouldn’t hijack any other existing threads either. If you want to keep discussing this topic, do it in this thread only. ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/110 "2010-02-17T22:00:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a waste of time at this point. Always was. The OP spends most of his time calling atheists liars, talking down to and/or insulting atheists and demonstrating that a lack of knowledge about epistemology and logic doesn’t prevent someone from trying to use them as a cudgel to prove their own massive superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/111 "2010-02-17T22:02:20Z")
It seems at this point the only thing OP wants to discuss is basically grammar. He feels a word means one thing, most others say it means something else. Any attempt at exploring the actual positions being held, or the underlying logic behind the terms is seen as a distraction from the riveting debate over grammar in ancient greece. Could pretty much go in IMHO at this point. ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/112 "2010-02-17T22:02:21Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > You don’t know -\> agnostic. Fine. > > But you keep claiming both ’ I do not “believe” there are no gods. ’ and ’ I do not “believe” there are gods. ’ > > If you believe those two statements are compatible, then you are an atheist, since you don’t believe there are gods. If what you actually mean is “I can’t make up my mind WHAT I believe”, then you may not be an atheist. Actually, what I am saying when I say "I do not ‘believe’ there are gods is: I am not willing to guess that there are gods. Obviously, I do not KNOW if there are gods…so the statement really is about guessing (or estimating or supposing.) And when I am saying “I do not ‘believe’ there are NO GODS” I am saying: I am not willing to guess that there are no gods. Obviously, I do not KNOW if there are no gods…so the statement really is about guessing (or estimating or supposing.) It makes perfect sense for a person who does not know if there are gods or not to say: I do not “believe” there are gods and I do not “believe” there are no gods.” The “believing” part, no matter how atheists want to fudge it, IS AN ACTIVE participation. Theists ACTIVELY believe there are gods. I can say I am not one of them by noting that I DO NOT believe there are gods. Atheists, in my opinion, ACTIVELY believe there are no gods. I can say I am not one of them by noting that I DO NOT believe there are no gods. Of course, Atheists want to say they are atheists just because they do not “believe” there are gods…but the fact is that the music tells us they actively believe there are no gods. Now, I realize there is a huge advantage that accrues to atheists while in debate to say “I do not actively believe there are no gods.” Most atheists on the outside of debate…on the outside of the Internet…would laugh to the point of exhaustion at anyone purporting to be an atheist but who suggests that they do NOT believe there are no gods. And well they should. This whole argument from the atheist perspective is farce! ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/113 "2010-02-17T22:04:43Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > It seems at this point the only thing OP wants to discuss is basically grammar. He feels a word means one thing, most others say it means something else. Any attempt at exploring the actual positions being held, or the underlying logic behind the terms is seen as a distraction from the riveting debate over grammar in ancient greece. Could pretty much go in IMHO at this point. I am totally willing to give up the designation atheist and agnostic…and just talk about what our takes are on the issues. I have mentioned that many times. But the atheists keep coming back to telling me that I am an atheist. Don’t pretend that I am unwilling to drop the designations and just discuss the issues…because I not only am willing…I am hoping we will eventually get to that point. The atheists here are the ones holding that up with their need to try to get me to be one of them. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/114 "2010-02-17T22:06:32Z")
In another thread the OP claimed that everyone was agnostic. When pressed on the fact that if that’s so it’s a useless descriptor, he backed off and said something to the effect of he was only being sarcastic. Oh really? > [@](#): > > I have become an agnostic activist because I truly think the world would be a better place if we all acknowledged our agnosticism. I believe, if you will excuse that seemingly incongruous expression, that everyone is an agnostic. It’s just that we agnostics come in two categories–those who acknowledge that we don’t know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know. That latter category includes the theists and the atheists (two sides of one coin)–both of whom suppose they know the answers to those unanswerable questions. > **[Frank Apisa](https://able2know.org/user/frank_apisa/)** > > Frank Apisa So how exactly is the word agnostic useful if we’re all agnostics, **Frank**? ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/115 "2010-02-17T22:06:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You have posted _exhaustively_ on this topic in a bunch of threads, including “Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive,” and “Atheism is a religion!” and “Believers: How do we know that the Bible is God’s word?” > > Which is allowed. You can continue repeating yourself if you want. All I did was ask you not to start _another_ thread about it. To which I will add that you shouldn’t hijack any other existing threads either. If you want to keep discussing this topic, do it in this thread only. Okay…so just so I am sure of what you are saying here: I am not allowed to start any other threads on this topic…and even though there are other threads devoted to the topic, I am only allowed to post in this one. Did I get that right? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/116 "2010-02-17T22:06:53Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Atheists, in my opinion, ACTIVELY believe there are no gods. I can say I am not one of them by noting that I DO NOT believe there are no gods. It doesn’t matter. Read that dictionary you alluded to. You’re wrong. I’m done with this thread. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/117 "2010-02-17T22:07:33Z")
**Frank** , I asked you to please respond to post #86. Why are you avoiding it? ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/118 "2010-02-17T22:07:51Z")
Then why did you create a new thread about the grammar issue when the other thread was getting into the meat of things? ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/119 "2010-02-17T22:08:44Z")
As far as I can see the discussion always devolves into actual defenses of the positions, which is why agreement of the terms are impossible, because the two seem to be interrelated. Basically atheists seem to generally be arguing that there is no quantitative difference between ‘agnostic’ not sure’ and atheists ‘I dont believe’, while agnostics argue there is one. In my view the discussion breaks down because of definitional disagreements. In my view ‘not sure’ in an agnostic sense is more a zen state of ‘not knowing’ rather than the ‘in between two positions’ kind of concept that some seem to be arguing for. Ie its an absence of a position rather than the ‘I think there isnt a god but there might be’ kind of thing that fits more with atheism. Otara ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/120 "2010-02-17T22:11:44Z")
I do not “actively believe there are no gods.” Sorry if that does not suit your agenda. Most atheists (“inside” or “outside the internet” whatever those distinctions are supposed to mean) are not strong atheists. Sorry if that doesn’t suit your agenda either, but attempting call people liars about what they think, so you can then attack what you _want_ them to think instead of what they say they think is too amateurish and lame to even bother engaging with. Come back when you can at least rise to the level of mere sophistry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=7)