The first part is a response to “why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false”, which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you’re really earning that “edgy teenager” label.
The second is saying that there’s literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of “is there a god?”, science included
Philosophy asks some “why?” questions, but if you think it’s equipped to definitively answer all of them you don’t know much about philosophy.
![Victory? [elder cactus]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/244d43ec-eeec-4e9c-a97a-a7e978cc47a5.jpeg){kind=link}
So your arguments for agnosticism over atheism is that you don’t want to make religious people feel uncomfortable and science isn’t philosophy?
how on earth was that your takeaway from that comment?
neither science nor philosophy can provide objective truth in answer to the question “is there a god?”
it’s edgy teen territory to act like they can
Their first part is a short work of fiction about making a religious person feel bad.
Their second is saying that science doesn’t answer the question “why.”
Philosophy asks “why” at least it does here on Earth.
The first part is a response to “why would somebody be sad if their religion turned out to be false”, which for the record, if you need it explained to you why that might be, you’re really earning that “edgy teenager” label.
The second is saying that there’s literally no way to be sure of answers on the scale of “is there a god?”, science included
Philosophy asks some “why?” questions, but if you think it’s equipped to definitively answer all of them you don’t know much about philosophy.
Atheism is trying to prove a negative
Gnostic atheism is not the same as agnostic atheism. You’re talking about a subsect of atheism.