re: #11 goddamnedfrank

Agnosticism is Clint Eastwood in that Dirty Harry movie where he’s all “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Atheism is Clint Eastwood lecturing an empty chair on stage in front of a confused audience.

Atheism is like “no, there are no gnomes that steal your underpants”.

Agnosticism is like “you don’t know whether there are such gnomes or not and you show your arrogance by claiming that there are no such gnomes; we can’t really decide if there are or not”.

// (Well, not really, because atheism in general doesn’t actually deny God and one can be an agnostic atheist like myself (“I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, it’s impossible to disprove the underpants gnomes hypothesis, but we also need to acknowledge that it’s highly unlikely, unprovable and unparsimonious, hence we proceed on a well-founded assumption that there are no underpants gnomes”); but fundamentalist agnosticism is just silly.)