# 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:** 9
**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, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/161 "2010-02-18T00:49:11Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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???) [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:** ![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, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/162 "2010-02-18T00:49:55Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > 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???) Wrong again. What he said was: [QUOTE=Marley23] [Mod Hat] On that note, Frank apisa, if you wish to dispute this point further, please do it in this thread **or one of the others you’ve used in the past**. Don’t start any new ones on this atheist/agnostic issue. [/Mod Hat] [/QUOTE] (Bolding mine.) ---
**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, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/163 "2010-02-18T00:53:30Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > 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. X-Ray…you are not the only one I am answering here. It is not all about you. > [@](#): > > Please answer to post #139. Ask it again. I’m tired of going back and forth looking for your posts. > [@](#): > > So you think it’s okay to cherry pick definitions? Yup. Especially if people like you are cherry picking definitions so that you can say that I am an atheist by definition. I am calling your attention to the fact that there are definitions that do not necessitate me being an atheist…and that I am not an atheist. Like it or leave it. Why should you be able to cherry pick…and I not? > [@](#): > > This is how The Random House dictionary defines abiogenesis: > [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 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) That is incredibly interesting. ---
**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, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/164 "2010-02-18T00:57:28Z")
This is a diversionary tactic. ---
**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, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/165 "2010-02-18T00:57:58Z")
The problem as awlays is at the end of the day there isnt any agreement on terms. To summarise: Some people find atheism most useful to simply describe ‘anyone who doesnt consider themselves a theist’. Ie that atheism is a passive position rather than an active philosophy, which means anyone who is not theist in nature is an atheist by default. Some people find it more useful to have categories to describe themselves as ‘neither atheist or theist’. These people seem to generally consider atheism a somewhat more active position than simply ‘lack of theism’. Some of this comes down to a distrust of atheism as an actual practise being simply ‘lack of theism’. There is some validity to this in my view in that in most cultures you have to pretty actively resist being a theist given how strongly most societies advocate theistic positions in one or more ways. To be one it generally means some level of active rejection of theism generally has to have taken place. Basically theism is built into us a cognitive process, and to really be an atheist takes active work rather than simply ‘not being theist’. As a concept they can certainly exist, just like agnosticism can, but as a practical postion Ive never met one yet. So in my view the issue breaks down to a practical vs theoretical argument and which definition holds the most utility. I suspect this will break across ideological lines as well. ---
**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, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/166 "2010-02-18T00:59:42Z")
I wouldn’t say there isn’t _any_ agreement on terms… ---
**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, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/167 "2010-02-18T01:02:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Wrong again. What he said was:(Bolding mine.) Not sure where you got that, Czarcasm. I may have missed a correction, but originally Marley wrote: > [@](#): > > 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. That was pretty specific! He mentioned other threads…and then quite specifically said I was to discuss this topic only in this thread. Which is what I said…so I am not wrong. ---
**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, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/168 "2010-02-18T01:03:12Z")
Fporgive me, I guess a more accurate statement would be ‘the argument is mostly foundering on the terms that cant be agreed upon’. ---
**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, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/169 "2010-02-18T01:06:17Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Not sure where you got that, Czarcasm. I may have missed a correction, but originally Marley wrote: > > That was pretty specific! He mentioned other threads…and then quite specifically said I was to discuss this topic only in this thread. > > Which is what I said…so I am not wrong. That’s not what he _originally_ said - he said that _after_ the incorrect comment you made that’s under discussion, in _response_ to it. That said, I wouldn’t (and didn’t) bother to nitpick with you about your original error, but for the love of sweet, sweet cheeze, can’t you _ever_ face the truth about _any_ of your errors without resorting to fraudulent defenses 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 18, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/170 "2010-02-18T01:07:22Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > X-Ray…you are not the only one I am answering here. It is not all about you. Oh brother. You skipped over one of my posts. I asked you to reply to it. You replied to half of it which was useless as the point was the second part of the post. I asked you to respond to all of it. You again ignored my request. > [@](#): > > Ask it again. I’m tired of going back and forth looking for your posts. Then just answer them in order and don’t skip over any. It’s too hard for you to scroll up? They’re numbered in order ya know. Here: > [@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? > [@](#): > > Yup. Especially if people like you are cherry picking definitions so that you can say that I am an atheist by definition. > > I am calling your attention to the fact that there are definitions that do not necessitate me being an atheist…and that I am not an atheist. That’s incredibly childish. Your definitions are correct. One who believes that there is no deity is an atheist. But it’s not correct in a vacuum. One who is without belief is also an atheist. Every atheist organization and philosophy encyclopedia I’ve ever seen agrees. Cherry picking definitions from a few dictionaries and claiming it’s the one and only definition isn’t workingwell for you. > [@](#): > > That is incredibly interesting. Isn’t it? That’s your only comment? See how dictionaries are just plain wrong sometimes? ---
**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, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/171 "2010-02-18T01:07:33Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Not sure where you got that, Czarcasm. I may have missed a correction, but originally Marley wrote: > > That was pretty specific! He mentioned other threads…and then quite specifically said I was to discuss this topic only in this thread. > > Which is what I said…so I am not wrong. Post #63 of this thread-direct quote. You are wrong. ---
**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, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/172 "2010-02-18T01:16:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Post #63 of this thread-direct quote. You are wrong. Post #109…LATER THAN THE POST YOU CITED AND WHICH SUPERCEDES YOUR CITATION: > [@](#): > > 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. I am not wrong, Czarcasm. You are wrong. ---
**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, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/173 "2010-02-18T01:20:58Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Where are you getting that the original definition of “agnostic” includes not believing in gods? Thomas Huxley INVENTED the word. He should know what it includes or excludes. [He wrote](http://http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Thomas_H._Huxley/): “Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe.” I do not have any grounds for professing to “believe” there are gods. Seems to me, Huxley is saying that as an agnostic then, I should not profess to believe in ‘em. I don’t. > **[Thomas H. Huxley Quotes - The Quotations Page](https://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Thomas_H._Huxley/)** ---
**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, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/174 "2010-02-18T01:22:38Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Isn’t it? That’s your only comment? See how dictionaries are just plain wrong sometimes? Yup. And although you may find this hard to accept…so are atheists. I simply choose to use Webster’s definition over yours. Sorry you find that objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/175 "2010-02-18T05:28:37Z")
Swimming against the tide and putting aside **Frank’s** issues for the moment, I’d like to argue that agnosticism is a meaningful position. Consider, for example, Deism, the notion that a creator God brought the universe into being, but doesn’t interfere in its affairs. Science can’t meaningfully address this question, as our evidence and theory break down at the Big Bang. Parsimony and Occam’s Razor say don’t worry about it. If we can’t test BB -1, it’s irrelevant. This, in fact, is my view. But, not everyone is required to adopt my view. If one says, I accept the BB theory, but believe it’s an open question whether quantum mechanics or God started the whole thing rolling, to me, that’s an agnostic. Moreover, it’s a view worthy of respect. Notably, the agnostic isn’t saying “there’s this conception of God in which I believe.” Rather, s/he is saying “there’s a conception of God that I can’t exclude.” ---
**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, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/176 "2010-02-18T14:27:53Z")
> [@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. I think I agree with you here. However, I’d like to see where this idea gets us: Are ignostics atheists? I think they are, but I think a case could be made that they are not. I wanted to get other people’s opinions on this. Here’s [the wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism): > [@](#): > > 1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term “God” is considered meaningless. > 2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by God?” before proclaiming the original question “Does God exist?” as meaningless. I suppose a related question is: Does atheism presume a coherent idea of what God is? ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/177 "2010-02-18T14:57:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a waste of time at this point. The OP is not going to accept correction… In other words, I am not going to accept that I must be considered an atheist, because the atheists in this forum demand that I accept their definition of what an atheist is! How dare I mention that I am not an atheist…just because I am not an atheist! > [@](#): > > …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. You people faulting me for “self-serving definitions” is like having Rush Limbaugh faulting me for obesity! (My weight for height is right on the button.) > [@](#): > > Everyone is just spinning their wheels. On this…we are in complete agreement. There is a lot of “wheel spinning” going on in this forum. > [@](#): > > This is never going to go anywhere. Oh, I am agnostic about that! I think there are people here who will think over some of the nonsense that is going on…and conclude that theists are not more unyielding than atheists in defense of BELIEFS. Then it will become a question of whether the atheists are more into that kind of thing than theists. You really shouldn’t expect instant results from this kind of thing, Diogenes. You gotta be more like me on that…lay the seeds and and hope that something will bloom in the future. > [@](#): > > Other than the definition of “atheism,” I’m not even sure what he thinks he disagrees with his fellow atheists about. Well, of course, I disagree that I am a “fellow atheist”…although I am delighted you guys want me so badly. Unfortunately, I must decline no matter how much you beg. And I disagree with them about whether or not absence of evidence for “x” constitutes evidence that “x” does not exist. I say it does not constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. And please spare me the misapplied introduction of the null hypothesis. The absence of evidence for “x” does not in any way constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. We disagree on 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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/178 "2010-02-18T15:02:29Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I suppose a related question is: Does atheism presume a coherent idea of what God is? 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. 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. It’s interesting, though, that I’ve sen 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. ---
**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, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/179 "2010-02-18T15:09:24Z")
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. ---
**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, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321/180 "2010-02-18T15:11:46Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > In other words, I am not going to accept that I must be considered an atheist, because the atheists in this forum demand that I accept their definition of what an atheist is! > > How dare I mention that I am not an atheist…just because I am not an atheist! > > You people faulting me for “self-serving definitions” is like having Rush Limbaugh faulting me for obesity! (My weight for height is right on the button.) > > On this…we are in complete agreement. There is a lot of “wheel spinning” going on in this forum. > > Oh, I am agnostic about that! I think there are people here who will think over some of the nonsense that is going on…and conclude that theists are not more unyielding than atheists in defense of BELIEFS. Then it will become a question of whether the atheists are more into that kind of thing than theists. > > You really shouldn’t expect instant results from this kind of thing, Diogenes. You gotta be more like me on that…lay the seeds and and hope that something will bloom in the future. > > Well, of course, I disagree that I am a “fellow atheist”…although I am delighted you guys want me so badly. Unfortunately, I must decline no matter how much you beg. And I disagree with them about whether or not absence of evidence for “x” constitutes evidence that “x” does not exist. I say it does not constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. And please spare me the misapplied introduction of the null hypothesis. > > The absence of evidence for “x” does not in any way constitute evidence that “x” does not exist. We disagree on that. 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. There is no way to provide evidenc that _anything_ doesn’t exist, so that point is a fatuous one. The default is simply to _presume_ non-existence absent any evdience of existence. The presumption is provisional, though. It’s not a dogma. I presume there are no elves, but if someone shows me an elf, I’ll believe in elves. 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. I would like you to answer **Voyager’s** question from above. Are there any gods you are sure don’t exist? Are you sure the Flying Sphagetti Monster doesn’t exist, or do you think it’s a real possibility? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-agnostics-are-atheists-question/529321.md?page=10)