Message from @someeffinbot
Discord ID: 641129836760399896
Unlike atheists, who have solid proof that the agnostics don't
Do they?
Atheists have solid proof for what?
What's the difference between agnostic and atheist other than feelings?
Beliefs, not feelings
@Jake the Exile Some atheists are agnostic. Most even.
Atheism if belief (or lack of belief) claim. Agnosticism if claim about provability.
Most atheists admit they cannot formulate absolute proof of what they believe is true based on likelihood.
Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief. Agnosticism is a lack of belief.
Now that culture has bled over into having the same attitudes towards sex as religion, I have even less respect for nuanced fence-straddling than before.
Majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. Only the fedora type are gnostic atheists who think they have proof of no god existing (which is pretty impossible as theists make their god definitions impossible to disprove).
The same attitude that says we don't know whether God is real is behind the attitude that biology isn't real.
Atheists claim that God does not exist. That's a positive claim, as in "I believe God does not exist". The "I believe" and "does not" makes it a positive claim.
Agnostics don't claim anything about God one way or another. They don't make any positive claims.
So atheists are believers of an idea, whereas agnostics are not.
"Atheists claim that God does not exist" - Fuck off. Only gnostic atheists do that.
Agnostic atheists merely think it's unlikely. They don't make a positive claim.
Gnostic atheism is the foundation of atheism, it's literally the pillar of the idea.
Well, according to you. Most of atheists aren't gnostic atheists.
Only fedoras are.
If you say gnostic atheists are fringe or a subgroup of atheism, then atheism wouldn't realistically have any branches at all.
I don't know if they are "fringe" or not, but they are definitely a subgroup.
Look, just because most people believe in X or Y or Z doesn't mean the pillar of an idea is suddenly no longer the pillar
Most people are pretty much not informed at all about these things
By **DEFINITION** of what "subgroup" is, if agnostic atheists exist (even if by one member) then gnostic atheism becomes a subgroup of atheism.
Ok, let me try to explain something here
If one fucking agnostic atheist is in existence, then gnostic atheism is just a fucking **subgroup** of atheism.
I know you are offended by this **FACT**.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
The reason why the term "agnostic atheism" was coined in the first place is because the idea of atheism evolved over time as more people became atheist. It started out as a rejection of God, and evolved into a rejection of the supernatural. But later it evolved further, because more and more self-proclaimed atheists appeared (most of them just average Joes, not scholars), and they realized that most of them are agnostic, not atheist.
fedorasexuals
If all those people hadn't claimed to be atheists (most of them falsely), this distinction would've never had to be made.
Throw an F into the alphabet soup for fedora
too many As for atheist or agnostic
It's like political theory, it evolves over time, and unfortunately a lot of bad ideas enter the ring.
Many ideas that are just plain stupid
It happened to a lot of philosophies, too
Someone has a useful idea, everyone else tears it apart until it loses its meaning
Not sure what I should make of that
Supposed to make me laugh?