“The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is the atheist has balls.” What are your thoughts?

[Kingofkings1992]

Agree.

Disagree.

Other. See my comment

[CountessSarah]

Atheism and agnosticism deal with entirely different things.
In fact, almost all self-titled 'agnostics' /are/ atheists, they just don't know what the words mean.
Theism and atheism deal with whether you believe in a god or not. Anyone who is not a theist, is an atheist.
Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with whether you think a position of knowledge with respect to a gods existence is possible or not. Most theists are gnostic theists - they were assert that their god definitely exists, and there are a few atheists, myself included, who are gnostic atheists who will assert that theists inability/refusal to demonstrate their claims, is sufficient to conclude they're false.

[nevernevernever]

"Agnostic" is a pretty broadly used term, while "atheist" means something pretty specific. I can see how a hardcore atheist could think this way, but I don't agree with it.

[zeitgeist057]

An atheist is just like a theist in their dogmatic belief in something without evidence. They are "believers". Agnostics are simply non-believers, or those who do not put their faith in something that does not have empirical evidence.

This is the funny thing about atheists, especially the egotistical ones who think they are better than theists: They are doing the same "stupid" things they are riding the theists' asses so hard about XD.

[Kaneki05]

I would agree. Agnostics be like just cause we cannot prove or disprove spaghetti monsters we just have to remain on the well they could exist.
Tbh they kinda miss the whole point of why hypothesis's are a thing. Nvm that we already have evidence that hawking's used in his own theory ageist god.

[MCheetah]

This is complete retard logic. Atheists are just as arrogant and assuming as heavily religious people. Agnostics are the only ones smart enough to deduce that most primitive, stupid human beings, who don't even fully know themselves, likely aren't going to know the answer to what created everything in the universe/multiverse, or know for sure absolutely nothing did.

In other words, only dumb-asses think they know everything. I suspect most humans are dumb-asses (but I can't prove it).

[RedFever]

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the agnostic is mature enough to openly admit to not knowing everything, whereas the atheist thinks he (it's always a "he") knows everything.

[Kingofkings1992]

Most of the time it’s a he, not always. There are some arrogant women out there too.

[RedFever]

Yes, I guess so. There's a certain skinny female YouTube atheist who readily comes to mind (Jaclyn Glenn).

[MCheetah]

RedFever
Jaclyn Glenn, holy sh*t! Is it 2014 again? 🤣 Now we gotta mention The Amazing Atheist, Repzion, and Sargon of Akkad (and his UKIP-killing suit), too! All the YouTube "Skeptics" and pseudo-intellectuals!

[crispycookie]

An agnostic claims that they do not know whether a deity exists or not while an atheist claims that a deity does not exist. I think the agnostic person has more balls to accept the fact that they do not know if a deity exists or not.

[slatyb]

An atheist lives without consideration for any god. An agnostic believers that the existence of a god or gods is unknowable. Most atheists are agnostic.

[liel443]

The difference between those who agree with this statement and those who don't is that those who don't agree with it has brains.

[Jlegacy]

The agnostic have more balls than the athiest. The athiest lacks courage because it takes courage to walk from an unknown towards a known or known towards an unknown.

[Jersey2]

I think the agnostic is smarter actually in that they know they can’t be sure. The atheist is usually a young person who wants to sound bold, contrarian and smart.

[Kaneki05]

I doubt most agnostics are smarter than hawkings who was super on the boat of god just simply cannot exist and even proved why in his own theory. Which has yet to have any counter argument and makes sense logically. Also to use a analogy, that been unsure giant spaghetti monsters exist just cause they have never seen proof for them is not really a smart way to view it neither would it be smart way to view that god could exist just cause they have never seen proof for them.

Agnostics would be smart ones if they brought actual evidence that backs up god's existence? Like ya know give us a For list and a Ageist list of all evidence when they get nothing on there for list other than just tons of people believe in something... it's not really gonna come across as a smart argument.
More of just a flat earthier argument but hell even them... try to do things albeit crazy stuff like actually want to get in space to prove it or some dumb thing with weights that i watched that... didn't prove anything but there trying?
Meanwhile agnostics cannot make any argument or at least try which would make me think, that they just don't want to talk about it and cannot be bothered with it. Which is all good and makes sense to a level and smart in it's own way.
But wouldn't say the actual concept of been agnostic as in yes just think anything supernatural or whatever could exist just cause we haven't seen it or fully understand everything yet. It's more of a throwaway thinking that don't help actual studies and kinda just makes facts and Hypothesis's and well simply the laws of our universe seem like they don't matter.

You are right about one thing for sure tho, we are for sure more bold and contrarian but i think that always comes across in any strong opinionated thing especially if one is basing it off evidence and lack off there evidence for the other point.

[Kaneki05]

Also yes i do have to acknowledge that if evidence did come in Light that was for god we would have to be open minded to it for sure making agnostic more of a logical conclusion at that point if there was actual evidence both way's but so far there is only evidence ageist.

[Jersey2]

@Kaneki05 Sorry TL:DR. Boring too. Anyway, Hawkins is gone. Without God he could be put in a dump vs a nice burial plot where he wastes space.

In 300 years we will learn a lot and he wouldn’t even be able to pass a High School science exam. There is soooo much we don’t know. He could even tell you what happened at or before the Big Bang.

Without God, nothing matters at all. Nothing. Certainly not your beliefs.

[Kaneki05]

Actually he already knows what happened before the big bang but good argument not. Don't bother to try argue back if your not gonna bother to read it's a waste of my time and shows your ignorant and don't really care about having a chat. So no need to waste my time. Next time just set your opinion to no one can reply, because if someone replys and you just didn't read dc. Then why bother allow people to reply to you?

Then also decides to make an argument that half witted without reading what's he is arguing ageist lmao. Dumbest person alive right here.

[Jersey2]

@Kaneki05 Really? He knows what happened before the big band. No one knows. Prove it.

[NamerOfStars]

The opposite, if anything. The agnostic is brave enough to admit he doesn't know.

[marc94]

The difference is that an atheist knows that consciousness has no primacy over existence and, by means of reason and applied logic, knows that there cannot be such thing as a god.

[jshm2]

Yeah, balls in his head. Which is why he's a mere atheist, and not capable of social cohesion.

[karaspara]

The athiest has made it's mind up the agnostic hasn't where do balls come into play?

[Anonymous]

Oh yes it certainly takes balls to believe in nothing like a sad emo kid.

[laraWM]

True, I obviously have balls

[Kingofkings1992]

Balls doesn’t always mean physical testicles. In this context, it means courage. Get a clue.

[RedFever]

It was clearly a joke. Get a clue!

[laraWM]

@RedFever Thank you

[Kingofkings1992]

@RedFever Joking is usually discerned by the tone of someone’s voice. You could have at least put an “lol” or something

[strateguy632]

atheist lazy