Agnosticism is fundamentally a belief for either the profoundly unintelligent or kitties who selectively change their view on the burden of proof so as not to offend religioids. Imagine the classic Carl Sagan example of going:
I have a dragon in my garage. But you can't see it because it's invisible, and you can't see any footprints because it's floating, and you can't detect the heat from the flames because they're heatless, and you can't feel the dragon because it's incorporeal
The religious response to that is to go "Actually, that's not a very good analogy to my religion because there's actually a lot of evidence and you also need to look inside for your spiritual connection blah blah blah". This is, of course, completely untrue, and anyone who thinks like that probably supports ISIS and/or the Catholic Church covering up child molestation. But the agnostic response is worse purely due to how epistemologically bankrupt it is. They go "Wow, I guess it really is impossible to know whether there's a dragon in your garage or not! The complexity of the universe is truly beyond the human mind 🤯".
Likewise with a similar thought experiment like Russell's teapot. A Christard, Mudslime, Cowshit Worshipper, or Kaykl Maker's Apprentice will say that the teapot doesn't exist, but their God does because their mriacles are real and their prayers really have been answered! These """people""" are obviously subhuman r-slurs who've somehow stumbled their way into reverting to a pre-medieval belief system, most likely to make up for their personal failings, which are many. But again the agnostic is worse still because apparently the teapot might exist or it might not, and it's literally impossible to know which is true.
Of course, this isn't actually how an agnostic/r-slur/subhuman would respond to these claims. They'd be able to effortlessly brush off Sagan's dragon or Russell's teapot as not existing, since they're just thought experiments. But once these are elevated to the status of an actual religious belief, then complete unfalsifiabilty means the burden of proof stops existing entirely, even though in every other situation ridiculous unfalsifiable beliefs are treated as purely false. The only way you could be agnostic is if you're literally too fricking r-slurred to understand what "truth" even is, or if you're so unprincipled that you'll go through extreme mental gymnastics in order not to offend people who don't even agree with you in the first place.
!atheists discuss. If you're an agnosticoid I encourage you to argue with me in the comments. I will call you multiple racial slurs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This doth remind me of a particular !familyman clip...
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Actually Russel's teapot does exist, because I have a spiritual connection to it.
Checkmate teapot deniers.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
South Park is for midwit Redditors, just like agnosticism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This but unironically. BIPOCs be like "noooo being atheist is irrational because you can't knoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow for sure that god don't real" but I can be as sure that god doesn't exist as I can be that the world around us isn't filled with insubstantial, invisible unicorns. Is it technically possible that that could be the case? Yes. Is it a reasonable idea to seriously entertain? No.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Scientists entertain extremely unlikely ideas all the time because one day we may get tools/data that allow us to prove those unlikely ideas as true or false and so it can be worth it to consider them.
Rather, some agnostics think it's impossible to EVER know if there's a god. They are r-slurred.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Bad analogy because invisible unicorns aren't causal forces. Better analogy would be: What is the underlying substrate of reality that explains both quantum mechanics and gravity? It would be perfectly reasonable be a substrate-agnostic; it wouldn't be prudent to declare yourself an a-stringtheorist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
this is r-slurred
are you stupid or something
why would you type this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Keep yourself safe BIPOC
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
R*pe R*pe R*pe R*pe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Good argument
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Agnosticism is the most dramaphobic belief system.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
TRUE
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It is probable that those who seek after anything whatever, will either find it as they continue the search, will deny that it can be found and confess it to be out of reach, or will go on seeking it. Some have said, accordingly, in regard to the things sought in philosophy, that they have found the truth, while others have declared it impossible to find, and still others continue to seek it. Those who think that they have found it are those who are especially called Dogmatics, as for example, the Schools of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics and some others. Those who have declared it impossible to find are Clitomachus, Carneades, with their respective followers, and other Academicians. Those who still seek it are the Sceptics. It appears therefore, reasonable to conclude that the three principal kinds of philosophy are the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Sceptic.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Technically I am an agnosticist, because I won't assign 0 probablity to any state of the universe. That said, I think Russell's teapot has roughly the same likelyhood of existing (with a margin of three orders of magnitude) as as any of the non-meme gods, so practically it is irrelevant.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
To me I think God as the first cause makes more sense than quantum fluctuations or multiverses or boltzmann brains
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context