# 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:** 8
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/141 "2010-02-17T23:10:38Z")
How about also answering to post # 114? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/142 "2010-02-17T23:12:52Z")
And now I remember why I don’t usually get into the religion threads. The invisible unicorn be with you all! ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/143 "2010-02-17T23:13:20Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > 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:-) In discussing evidence, we need to distinguish what we expect to see and what we don’t expect to see. If there were unicorns, we’d expect to find at least one prancing around, especially as the forests shrink, and we’d expect to find at least one unicorn fossil. For UFOs, in the over 60 years since Arnold saw his disks, we’d expect to find one piece of physical evidence, or at least one unambiguous photo. For SETI, even if we don’t hear anything, that would demonstrate that no one is transmitting close enough. If the aliens existed around the five worlds, and they are at a 1800s level at best, we’d not expect to hear anything from them, so the lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. The deist world view implies no evidence of that god, so lack of belief is about the best we can justify. The Western theist worldview, on the other hand, claims massive intervention by God - from the extremes of floods and such down to just sending his kid and doing the odd miracle. Lack of evidence to support these claims is indeed evidence that they are not true. So, it is not evidence that counts - it is expected evidence. Expected evidence is kind of like the predictions made by theories. As an example, if experiments don’t turn up expected evidence of Higgs bosons, someone claiming absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is going to be laughed out of the room. Lack of expected evidence is going to force a rework of the theory. ---
**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, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/144 "2010-02-17T23:20:03Z")
> [@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.” And your last statement would be correct if you lacked the belief that even one god out of millions didn’t exist. But saying that it is not true that for all gods gi you believe that gi does not exist does not mean that it is not true that for any god Gj you believe Gj does not exist. I can use the proper notation if you’d like. The former statement says that there is at least one Gi for which you lack disbelief, the second says that there is at least one Gj for which you do have disbelief. The statements are compatible. So you didn’t answer the question. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/145 "2010-02-17T23:41:51Z")
“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.” That is different again from what Im talking about. I understand most if not all ‘active’ atheists positions are logically based on the null hypothesis and the like, rather than simple ‘god doesnt exist’ beliefs as such. Ie they almost all inherently allow for the possibilty that god exists, if sufficient evidence was found rather than having ‘faith’ that god doesnt exist. But in my view that is different from ‘I am not making any decision at all on this issue’, which in my view is more akin to the pure agnostic position as a concept. This doesnt really have anything to do with level of certainty or ‘not sureness’ as such, which is why I put the term in italics, if someone can come up with a better term it would be very helpful. “If a person had no opinion at all as to the probability of winning the lottery, they would bet every time” Well firstly, bet on what? You cant do all the religions. And thats a bit like arguing that true atheists have no absolute morality so will be more likely to end up as self centered psychopaths. Predicting behaviour on the basis of philosophical views isnt that straightforward. Otara ---
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/146 "2010-02-17T23:49:22Z")
**Otara** , you’ve been here for almost seven years. Do you not know how to quote posters properly? It would make following the conversation easier for everyone if you would do so. > [@Otara](#): > > That is different again from what Im talking about. Look again at what you wrote and my responses. What I responded to is exactly what you were talking about. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/147 "2010-02-17T23:56:23Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > “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.” > > That is different again from what Im talking about. I understand most if not all ‘active’ atheists positions are logically based on the null hypothesis and the like, rather than simple ‘god doesnt exist’ beliefs as such. Ie they almost all inherently allow for the possibilty that god exists, if sufficient evidence was found rather than having ‘faith’ that god doesnt exist. > > But in my view that is different from ‘I am not making any decision at all on this issue’, which in my view is more akin to the pure agnostic position as a concept. This doesnt really have anything to do with level of certainty or ‘not sureness’ as such, which is why I put the term in italics, if someone can come up with a better term it would be very helpful. I don’t think a person _can_ choose not to make a decision on the issue. You can choose not to _state_ one, to be sure, but under the hood the little cogs in your head will be turning, turning, turning…and you will either find yourself granting or witholding credibility to claims. Things are categorized as likely or not, and you act accordingly - pretty much regardless of whether you articulate (or even understand) your thought processes. Belief isn’t really something a person can actively control. It just happens. > [@Otara](#): > > “If a person had no opinion at all as to the probability of winning the lottery, they would bet every time” > > Well firstly, bet on what? You cant do all the religions. Most people don’t encounter all the religions - there is usually a dominant one in the area, or failing that a dominant kind of religion in the area. See the “Describe your conversion from religion to atheism or agnosticism.” thread - there are several accounts of atheists who cruised through acting in compliance with the religion without really actively believing or disbelieving it, just because it was expected of them. Admittedly that’s not technically pascal’s wager - it gambles on immediate societal results rather than post-death rewards. On the other hand, I’m not sure these folk would qualify as “pure” agnostics, because they didn’t fail to form an opinion. > [@Otara](#): > > And thats a bit like arguing that true atheists have no absolute morality so will be more likely to end up as self centered psychopaths. Predicting behaviour on the basis of philosophical views isnt that straightforward. > > Otara No - those arguments are based on the fallacious opinion that morality from sources other than god is impossible. It’s not even the same type of argument. ---
**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, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/148 "2010-02-18T00:05:07Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > **Frank** - Out of curiosity, do you intend to return to your other thread on whether “lack of evidence of x is not evidence of lack of x”? Because I still have those unanswered questions in there. Namely, I’m wondering about that coin flip. Still waiting… ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/149 "2010-02-18T00:13:24Z")
“Look again at what you wrote and my responses. What I responded to is exactly what you were talking about.” I really dont think you’re really understanding what Im talking about but its probably due to the terms Im using. You cant ‘not take a position’ and ‘believe or not believe’ in the kind of way Im talking about. Once you lean towards a side you have left that state of ‘not taking a position’. Now granted thats a philosophical position in itself, and in my view a matter of axioms rather than ‘right or wrong’ as you seem to be arguing. Basically it comes down to what you define is necessary for in order to not really take a position. We seem to disagree on that, which is Ok I guess. “I don’t think a person can choose not to make a decision on the issue.” I agree practically its very hard if not impossible to do this, but as a goal or concept it can be defined as such, which is where the zen kind of argument comes in. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/150 "2010-02-18T00:19:10Z")
I’m currently preparing foam fingers and silk-screened tees for this topic. “Bros before Atheos” for the strict agnostics “A-gnosis, moar liek Halitosis” for the strong atheists I don’t know. ---
**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, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/151 "2010-02-18T00:21:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is correct, and the first statement is the definition of atheism. Not according to Webster or other two dictionaries I cited. So if you are saying that I should use your definition over the one in Websters…why??? ---
**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, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/152 "2010-02-18T00:23:27Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 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? > [Frank Apisa](http://able2know.org/user/frank_apisa/) > > So how exactly is the word agnostic useful if we’re all agnostics, **Frank**? Well obviously it is not useful in this forum! ---
**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 18, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/153 "2010-02-18T00:28:13Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Well obviously it is not useful in this forum! It’s a perfectly useful word - as long as everyone\* understands what it means. (Which isn’t “not an atheist or a thiest”, because in that case it _is_ useless, because it would refer to nobody. But then, that’s not the way the word is used.) - Or most everyone. It’s still useful despite you. ---
**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, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/154 "2010-02-18T00:36:52Z")
> [@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? > [@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? Well, Gustav… …the “second quote” read: “I do not believe any gods exist…” That is not the same as “I believe no gods exist. If I had said the latter (I didn’t)…that would be a guess. The former is not a guess at all. It is merely a statement about what I do not believe. I am getting to the point where I doubt you can understand that difference, but I will keep trying to get through. ---
**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, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/155 "2010-02-18T00:39:16Z")
> [@cmosdes](#): > > Still waiting… Sorry…haven’t been back there in a while. Give me a reply number and I will respond. In fact, bring your question here. I have been warned by a monitor that I am only to address this issue here in this thread. (What could I tell ya???) ---
**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, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/156 "2010-02-18T00:40:17Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It’s a perfectly useful word - as long as everyone\* understands what it means. (Which isn’t “not an atheist or a thiest”, because in that case it _is_ useless, because it would refer to nobody. But then, that’s not the way the word is used.) > > - Or most everyone. It’s still useful despite you. If you think everyone is either a theist or an atheist…you have problems. That simply is not the way things are. ---
**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 18, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/157 "2010-02-18T00:42:29Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Well obviously it is not useful in this forum! Where is it useful if everyone is agnostic? Why do you keep skipping over my posts? I reminded you to get to one of my posts and you responded to only half of it. I then re-posted what you left out and you skipped right over it. Please answer to post #139. > [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Not according to Webster or other two dictionaries I cited. > > So if you are saying that I should use your definition over the one in Websters…why??? So you think it’s okay to cherry pick definitions? This is how The Random House dictionary defines abiogenesis: > [@](#): > > the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis) Would you insist that this is the one and only definition of abiogenesis? It’s not even correct. That’s not how the word is used in science. This is: > **[Abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)** > > Abiogenesis or the origin of life (sometimes called biopoesis) is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emerge... ---
**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 18, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/158 "2010-02-18T00:43:48Z")
**Otara** , PLEASE use quote tags! ---
**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 18, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/159 "2010-02-18T00:45:45Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Well, Gustav… > > …the “second quote” read: “I do not believe any gods exist…” > That is not the same as “I believe no gods exist. > > If I had said the latter (I didn’t)…that would be a guess. Just to volley the tennis ball back over the net, it is perfectly possible to construct a positive belief in the nonexistence of supernatural deities without “guessing”. The fact that you make a blithe dismissal of all atheist arugments doesn’t mean that they’re _actually_ invalid or uncompelling - it just means that _you_ don’t like them. And even if the arguments are _not_ compelling, then accepting them _still_ isn’t a guess. If somebody tells you that the earth is flat, and convinces you with some spiffy 14th century argument (“people on the bottom would drop off!”), and then you are asked the shape of the earth, then when you say it’s flat it’s not a _guess_. You know what you think and have reasons for thinking it. ---
**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 18, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/160 "2010-02-18T00:47:27Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > If you think everyone is either a theist or an atheist…you have problems. > > That simply is not the way things are. What problems do you imagine I have? Too many people agreeing with me about the words mean? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=9)