>>116
Stronk atheist reportin.
4/10 of the atheists I've come across (that declare themselves as such) are pretty much adamant in declaring that every other belief is wrong and how their STEM choice of career is the shit while everyone else's is shit. I hate them. They're ignorant bigots that don't know how social sciences work and never will.
People that have anonimity on the internet, that might as well be false flags, on sites like halfchan which is basically edgeland dumbed down for kids. -Less than half- which is significant.
The rest of us, even in those places, are quite reasonable people that welcome religious folks or agnostic fellas if they want to talk about philosophy in peace. We might robust them from time to time, but we don't have to and most of the time we won't unless they start to mess up with scientific knowledge and things like that.
Speaking about agnostic people (again, sites like these and googletube, that choose to declare themselves as such yadayada), however, 8/10 are either superdefensive niggas or snotty bastards, not realizing their own position and how it is defined in opposition to the rest. Choosing to argue with them will be often on the smallest of terminology and they can be stubborn like no christian can, and throw tantrums twice as large as they do (to be fair this is very very rare though). Sorry for being rude but I need to tell things the way I see them, either the agnostic community is a largely ok place where people don't speak loud enough, given the nature of their posture, or, well, you might guess the alternative.
And the fact is, even if the experience of one anon isn't in any way indicative of the health of a whole philosophical bundle of ideological postures, your post gives away your own defensive stance.
And when you find people like this, you can't help but feel both love and hate for them at the same time. Many of those arguments are things that they start and that aren't even needed in order to reach a satisfactory enough conclusion for both sides since EVERYONE is agnostic at least in the QUALITY of their knowledge related to things beyond our scope OC.
I'm sure I could have writen that better, let me try again, given that no one can prove whatever their side is right for sure, the three of them are operating on the belief level, some of them take a faith based approach, some use reason, some use a combination between the two and some avoid the question entirely. Therefore you can speak of agnostic christians, agnostic atheists and pure (or double) agnostics.
But here is the elephant in the room, when the agnostic declares "Isn't it true that nobody knows shit and therefore choosing is wrong?" IS a position. Because you're declaring yourself against taking a choice. When you choose not to intervene in an assault, or in an election, or in a charity effort, or abandon one career in favor of another, those are choices and they have consequences of their own. How valid those elections are depends entirely on the reason and the circumstances in which one might choose to abstain from doing whatever.
And even if that umbrella is wide as fuck, it doesn't contribute much to the discussion at hand (bar Ignosticism, which I practice as much as my conscience allows me to), and therefore doesn't encourage progress and discussion on very important topics related to these (pesky) matters, such as gods or antigods and the like. Therefore, it might be not as reasonable as it seems at first glance.
Therefore I respect your (double) agnosticism if you understand that we have reasons to make our own choices too, and that those reasons might be damn good. Declaring yourself above the discussion would be disrespectful and counterproductive.