# 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:** 7
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/121 "2010-02-17T22:15:16Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Basically atheists seem to generally be arguing that there is no quantitative difference between ‘agnostic’ not sure’ and atheists ‘I dont believe’ We’re not arguing that. I don’t recall seeing anyone here argue for that. You can be not sure and believe and not sure and not believe. You can be sure and believe and you can be sure and not believe. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/122 "2010-02-17T22:17:38Z")
The agnostic position is not “not sure,” but “can’t empirically verify.” ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/123 "2010-02-17T22:22:50Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > It doesn’t matter. Read that dictionary you alluded to. > > You’re wrong. > > I’m done with this thread. Okay…see you somewhere else. But I am not wrong. Here are the definitions in the dictionaries: Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of atheist: “one who believes that there is no deity” Cambridge Advanced dictionary definition of atheist: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist” Webster’s New World College Dictionary definition of atheist: “a person who believes that there is no God” I am an agnostic. I am an agnostic. I do not “believe there are no gods" and I do not “believe there are gods.” ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/124 "2010-02-17T22:30:29Z")
“You can be not sure and believe and not sure and not believe. You can be sure and believe and you can be sure and not believe.” I dont agree with that. To be truly ‘not sure’ you cant ‘believe’ or ‘not believe’, they arent separable in that way. Thats where the zen aspect comes in in my view, its a deliberate abeyance of taking a position at all. You could be ‘not sure’ but think more/most likely’. In my view that would be where overlap could occur with a theist or atheist position. But a pure ‘not sure’ is not taking a position either way. Ie conceptually this exists, even if in practise pure agnosticism is probably quite difficult to achieve. ---
**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:** [February 17, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/125 "2010-02-17T22:33:58Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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! I admit to believing (but not knowing) there are no gods, but I don’t laugh at anyone who only says they lack belief in gods - like you and Dio. We all have thresholds of belief, and we all have ways of arriving at belief. Since there is a near infinite number of possible gods, I can see a reticence in believing they don’t exist. I was a weak atheist also for a long time. So again, can you enumerate some of the gods you believe don’t exist? Surely there are some. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/126 "2010-02-17T22:34:08Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > No I am not. I am an agnostic! You’re a mammal too - so _ **what** _? As has been **repeatedly** demonstrated, the terms “agnostic” and “atheist” aren’t mutually exclusive! Being an atheist won’t make you lose your agnostic club card, trust me! Seriously, you are both an agnostic and an atheist. So am I. Neither of us is going to burst into flames as a result. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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. It has nothing to do with what _I_ want, though I admit I do have a desire not to see people pissing all over the english language. The words have _meanings_. Meanings you clearly do not _like_, but meanings nonetheless. And “not a theist” is one very common definition of “atheist”. Unlike the agnostic/atheist thing, that _is_ mutually exclusive, and more than that, it excludes the middle by definition. Everyone (and everything) is either a theist or an atheist. Not both, and not neither. There is no third category for a person to be in that excludes them both the others. Very comparably, you’re also bigger than a breadbox. People as small as a breadbox are not suggesting that you are as small as a breadbox too, and that’s sensible of them. But they’re not any more sensible than the persons who are larger than a breadbox claiming that you are too. The only non-sensible person would be somebody who’s claiming you’re _not_ bigger than a breadbox, when you clearly are. Now, _that_ would be nonsenical. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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 are ignoring _volumes_ of other cites and sources (including ones from the horses’ mouthes) in order to preserve your false beliefs. You are not the only person who chooses to cherry-pick cites and pretend that the conflicting information isn’t out there. Your peers in this include truthers, flat earthers, young earth creationists… Also, I should point out that I don’t think that M-W is necessarily _wrong_ - did you know that many people _don’t draw a distinction_ between “not believing” and “believing not”? In fact, in most contexts they’re the same - if you don’t believe you have a dollar in your wallet, then you believe you don’t have a dollar in your wallet. So I’m not at all certain that the writer in m-w _didn’t_ mean my definition - they just might have not parsed the words the way you’re parsing them. I certainly don’t think you can make a sure argument that they _weren’t_ considering an absence of belief in any diety to be _synonymous_ with the belief there is no diety. The distinction between the two concepts is quite fine. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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. There you go with the slamming atheists again. As if you had some sort of moral high ground, thinking that sanity, logic, and reason includes cherry-picking cites and ignoring corrective information like you do. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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. This is unintentionaly hilarious. The irony! > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Thank you for your comments. You don’t have to thank me; I think that defending sanity, logic, and reason is rewarding in and of itself. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/127 "2010-02-17T22:35:16Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > I dont agree with that. To be truly ‘not sure’ you cant ‘believe’ or ‘not believe’, they arent separable in that way. You’re wrong. I know plenty of theists who “aren’t sure” and admit they don’t know God exists, yet believe He does. I also know atheists who aren’t sure gods don’t exist but are without belief that any do. EDIT: See the beginning of **Voyager** ’s last post. > [@](#): > > You could be ‘not sure’ but think more/most likely’. You could also not be sure and believe. What’s more or most likely in that person’s view is mostly irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/128 "2010-02-17T22:35:33Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I am trying hard as I can to understand why you people are so intent on getting us to be part of your group…but I just cannot. It’s not that we’re intent on _getting_ you to be part of our little group - you _already are_ part of our group, according to your own description of your views. The only argument here is what particular words mean. Most of us prefer the broader definition of “atheist” because with the definition you want to use, there would be hardly any atheists and the word wouldn’t be too useful. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/129 "2010-02-17T22:38:54Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > “You can be not sure and believe and not sure and not believe. You can be sure and believe and you can be sure and not believe.” > > I dont agree with that. To be truly ‘not sure’ you cant ‘believe’ or ‘not believe’, they arent separable in that way. Thats where the zen aspect comes in in my view, its a deliberate abeyance of taking a position at all. > > You could be ‘not sure’ but think more/most likely’. In my view that would be where overlap could occur with a theist or atheist position. But a pure ‘not sure’ is not taking a position either way. > > Ie conceptually this exists, even if in practise pure agnosticism is probably quite difficult to achieve. I’m pretty sure a “pure” agnostic as you describe would not act like an atheist - such a person would seem like the perfect target for pascal’s wager. If a person had no opinion at all as to the probability of winning the lottery, they would bet every time - only an awareness of the odds counters the pull of the rewards. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/130 "2010-02-17T22:38:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Interesting. You think it’s just as likely that gods as exist as that they don’t exist. Do you feel the same way about unicorns? If not, why not? Unicorns do not exist (at least as far as I can tell). I would also extend this to any god detailed enough to be an object of worship (Zeus, Yahweh, the FSM)–these do not exist. But I consider myself agnostic because I believe (based on the evidence of humanity) it isn’t possible to know any clear property of God, and because of this I’m not prepared to rule on his existence/non-existence. The existence of the universe itself makes me lean more toward something that acted as the cause of the universe, but I would never tie my own actions to belief in such a “god”, much less try to convince others of its existence or attempt to make any detailed claims about it. To give an example that roughly matches my position, consider a belief/non-belief in extra-terrestrial life. There is as much evidence for this possibility as there is for unicorns, there is a sizeable minority who believe in ridiculous, easily-debunked versions of extra-terrestrial life (UFO’s, ancient astronauts, alien abduction), and even those who believe such life exists concede it most likely has zero effect on our current lives. Yet belief in the possibility doesn’t seem to be as quickly dismissed as an equivalent belief in unicorns; the speculative [Drake Equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) is taken far more seriously than, say, speculation about the size and shape of a unicorn’s horn, and the people involved in SETI aren’t commonly ridiculed for being deluded fools. It seems then worthwhile to keep the possibility open even though (for now) there is no evidence and almost nothing we can definitively say about extra-terrestrial life forms. And who knows, maybe there is a planet out there filled with intelligent unicorns just waiting to screw up all our thinking:-) ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/131 "2010-02-17T22:45:03Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > **Frank** , I asked you to please respond to post #86. Why are you avoiding it? My response to post #86: [quote=“x-ray\_vision, post:86, topic:529321”] If you insist on defining a word by what you claim is its etymology, why don’t you do the same for the word “agnostic”? If you have a quarrel with the definition of agnostic…do your own research. As far as I am concerned an agnostic is someone who acknowledges he does not know the answer to Ultimate Questions (like are there gods or are there no gods). When describing my own personal agnosticism, I usually add, I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a guess. I am pretty sure the definitions in any dictionary will come close to that. As for etymology, the word was coined (invented, actually) by Thomas Huxley…and he told us what HE meant by it: “I … invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic,’ … antithetic to the ‘Gnostic’ of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.” So it pretty much means, “not know.” Huxley also wrote: “Agnosticim simply means that a man shall not say he knows OR BELIEVES that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe.” Huxley also wrote: “The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.” I see no evidence for gods…so I do not “believe” there are gods. I see no evidence that there are no gods…so I do not “believe” there are no gods. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/132 "2010-02-17T22:46:15Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Well by now you should realize that I disagree that I am an atheist…so I cannot disagree with fellow atheists. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/133 "2010-02-17T22:48:37Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I admit to believing (but not knowing) there are no gods, but I don’t laugh at anyone who only says they lack belief in gods - like you and Dio. We all have thresholds of belief, and we all have ways of arriving at belief. Since there is a near infinite number of possible gods, I can see a reticence in believing they don’t exist. I was a weak atheist also for a long time. > > So again, can you enumerate some of the gods you believe don’t exist? Surely there are some. I do not believe any gods exist… …and I guess I have to point this out… …that is not the same as saying “I believe no gods exist.” ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/134 "2010-02-17T22:52:01Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I do not believe any gods exist… > > …and I guess I have to point this out… > > …that is not the same as saying “I believe no gods exist.” This is correct, and the first statement is the definition of atheism. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/135 "2010-02-17T22:52:04Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Well by now you should realize that I disagree that I am an atheist…so I cannot disagree with fellow atheists. Whether or not you admit you’re a mammal, you have fellow mammals, and you can disagree with them. Even on the subject of whether you’re a mammal! It _would_ be nice if you could change your actual identity just by labeling yourself as something different, though. I would label myself as “millionaire”. When I do that now, though, I just get funny looks and my bank still refuses to let me withdraw tremendous sums of money. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/136 "2010-02-17T22:53:19Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > consider a belief/non-belief in extra-terrestrial life. There is as much evidence for this possibility as there is for unicorns I think I’d take exception to this thought. We have definitive proof that life, however improbable, does form. Never has there been a single reliable recording of a unicorn. If something happens once that is pretty good evidence it can happen again. Not a guarantee, mind you, but it certainly raises the possibility. If something has _never_ happened in trial after trial after trial, it starts to become less and less likely it will happen. Again, this isn’t a guarantee, but it is a strong indication it just won’t happen. ---
**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 17, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/137 "2010-02-17T22:53:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Whether or not you admit you’re a mammal, you have fellow mammals, and you can disagree with them. Even on the subject of whether you’re a mammal! > It _would_ be nice if you could change your actual identity just by labeling yourself as something different, though. I would label myself as “millionaire”. When I do that now, though, I just get funny looks and my bank still refuses to let me withdraw tremendous sums of money. Glory! ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/138 "2010-02-17T23:00:17Z")
[QUOTE=Frank apisa] I have no evidence for or against the existence of gods…so I am not able to make a meaningful guess in either direction [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Frank apisa] I do not believe any gods exist… [/QUOTE] I’m very unclear as to your actual position at this point. These two statements from posts in this thread do not seem at all compatible. What would you call the second quote if not a meaningful guess? ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/139 "2010-02-17T23:05:18Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > As far as I am concerned an agnostic is someone who acknowledges he does not know the answer to Ultimate Questions (like are there gods or are there no gods). You didn’t answer the second part of post #86. I’ll repeat it: > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Atheists and agnostics share a characteristic in common…namely that we do not believe in gods. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Where are you getting that the original definition of “agnostic” includes not believing in gods? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/140 "2010-02-17T23:07:08Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > I’m very unclear as to your actual position at this point. These two statements from posts in this thread do not seem at all compatible. What would you call the second quote if not a meaningful guess? He’s claiming the “no opinion whatsoever” route - you know, the one normally reserved for rocks and babies, who have not been prevailed upon to form an opinon (which I’d say qualifies as a belief) on the subject. I don’t really believe that he actually has that level of intellectual innocence, though. He’s heard pascal’s wager and picked a side. He just doesn’t like the label that comes with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=8)