What is 4chans issue with agnostic atheists? I'm an agnostic atheist because there's no proof that a higher being doesn't exist, so I'd be fucking stupid to rule out the possibility.
Imo a 'solid' atheist is as dumb as a religious person. They believe in shit that that hasn't been proven/proven wrong. If there is still a possibility, because it hasn't been proven otherwise, then why tf would you firmly believe such a thing does not exist?
You don't know shit ffs
it's pointless semantics that makes you look like an arrogant prick. you don't believe in god, atheist. leave it at that. nobody cares about the rest.
There's no such thing as agnostic atheist. The two contradict each other you retard
>accepting cluelessness on a matter makes you arrogant
I think he meant he's agnostic, but leans towards atheism more than a belief of god.
he literally said that he thinks solid atheists are stupid, implying that because he accepts that he doesn't know, he's better than them. Arrogance.
Care to expand on that?
He may be arrogant for saying it the way he did, but his agnostic-atheism isn't the cause for his arrogance.
Why does it make him arrogant? Believing in something that hasn't been proved is stupid. What else can it be honestly?
There is no prof that underpants gnomes don't exist.
>whats 4chans issue with people that choose to believe that they don't know anything?
Not a single one of you fuckheads practices what you preach
your mother is a hamster
it's certainly a reflection of it. And i've found that many an arrogant prick chooses the agnostic atheist label,. Which is why Sup Forums tends to have issues with them, we're the definition of tall poppy syndrome here
...
I said it doesn't right? Am I having a stroke or are you making no sense?
>accepting cluelessness on a matter reflects arrogance
Enlighten me.
you're braindead
I am?
Because it creates a divide between them and "gnostic atheists", that puts them in a perceived intellectual superior position. there's no reason to take that position besides wanting to look better than other people. it's a pointless semantic. end of the day, you're an atheist.
Yes, you're a retard
watch in awe as this post never gets replied to
It's not wrong to assume that something is so (like God not existing) because of lack of evidence. Assume that something *could* exist, even though there's absolutely no evidence for it is a completely logical dead end because every single absurd thing could be reduced to that.
That schizophrenic man on the street who says he can hear pigeon's thoughts? Maaaaayybbe he can. We don't have any counter proof.
Woman says she was raped, even though there's absolutely no evidence for it? Well, we can't let the man go because there's no evidence he *didn't* rape her.
Etc etc
It's just being unsure if there is a god because it can't be proven, you're just assuming they're trying to appear more intellectually superior. That just isn't true.
I could argue firmly believing something without any evidence makes you arrogant.
Comparing apples to oranges. It's quite plausible there is a divine creator of sorts since it would explain questions we naturally have, or even that we're living in a simulation. The simulation hypothesis would explain phenomenon such as electrons communicating instantaneously over an infinite distance. So, scientifically it can't be disregarded as false. Taking a scientific approach doesn't make you arrogant.
4chn has issues with everyone
about everything
>It's quite plausible there is a divine creator of sorts since it would explain questions we naturally have, or even that we're living in a simulation.
It's not "quite plausible" in the slightest when there's absolutely no evidence for it m8.
Just because at the moment we don't have the answer as to why or how certain things happen, doesn't mean we can just say "well there's a possibility God did it" because that would nicely wrap everything up. That's a cheap cop-out.
Say, for example, you came home after work one day and found all of your stuff stolen. The police can't find any evidence as to what happened, so they say "Maybe the divine creator took your stuff" and leave. 10 minutes later, you find a size 9 shoe-print in your back garden. You call them back, and they say "Maybe the divine creator put the shoeprint there."
That line of reasoning is absurd.
Again comparing apples to oranges, but if you insist on that, it's more like having all your shit stolen and claiming it's possible a nigger took it.
Take quantum entanglement. Apparently electrons can communicate instantly over infinite distances. Not only that, but they behave differently when under observation; simply looking at something will change its behavior. If that doesn't give plausibility to the idea of a greater power, whether it be a divine creator or that we're in a simulation, then you're not being scientific. Seriously look into quantum entanglement and the double-slit experiment, it's spooky shit.
So while there is no evidence to the contrary about a creator. There is plenty of contrary evidence to the idea of the gods of earth's religions.
So yea strong atheism is legit. Because if something created the universe, I can garauntee it wasn't jesus' dad.
>Again comparing apples to oranges
I purposefully made is as applicable to this scenario as possible. If you can't make the logical connections, that's on you. That doesn't mean it's "apples to oranges" just because you disagree with it.
>Not only that, but they behave differently when under observation; simply looking at something will change its behavior. If that doesn't give plausibility to the idea of a greater power, whether it be a divine creator or that we're in a simulation, then you're not being scientific.
Literally the heart of your argument is "we can't explain it at the moment, that gives plausibility to a divine creator". If you can't intuitively see that that's a logical dead end, then there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise.
>Seriously look into quantum entanglement and the double-slit experiment, it's spooky shit.
Why are psuedo-scientists always attracted to Quantum Mechanics.
That's why agnostic-atheism rather than agnostic-theism; seeing it as something that probably isn't true, but not disregarding it either.
You keep ignoring the simulation hypothesis. Since I'm lazy I'll be brief. See Elon Musk on the idea we're eventually going to simulate our own universe, and due to probability a higher power has already done it, and more importantly computer programming has been found in string theory.
You're practically saying all hypothesis' are null and void. Not very logical is it? How else would we ever learn anything?
Just from what you've been spouting, I can guarantee everything you know about science comes from youtube videos.
This is why pop-sci is garbage.
You say that after completely negating from facts; perpetrating arrogance.
Ignorance is not how we learn things, kiddo.