Not that there’s anything good about this, but hearing that both Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins “resigned” from whatever honorary positions they had with the FFRF rather made my heart sink.

I was a linguistics student for a time, and Pinker’s books always had a sociolinguistic aspect to them, but I never saw transphobia. It was admittedly a while back, so it really wasn’t yet settling into the national consciousness.

I also admired Dawkins’ writing style; again, I saw nothing transphobic.

So for both of these guys to be like “nope, you should have totally kept a piece up that says transwomen should have fewer rights and options” is, maybe, the final insult of 2024.

  • Obi@sopuli.xyz
    6·
    3 days ago

    I can never remember which one between atheism and agnosticism is the one where you just don’t give a fuck, that’s the one I am.

      • FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
        9·
        3 days ago

        Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually not so much about doubt, but whether it is possible to know.

        An Agnostic says it’s not possible to know whether there is a god or not.

        A Gnostic says it’s possible to know whether there is a god or not

        An Atheist says they don’t believe a god exists

        A Theist says they believe a god exists.

        You can be an Agnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in god, but I don’t think it can be proven god doesn’t exist.”

        Or a Gnostic Atheist. “I don’t believe in a god, and I think we can prove God doesn’t exist.”

        Or an Agnostic Theist. “I think God exists, but I don’t think we can prove it. You just have to believe”

        Or a Gnostic Theist. “I think God exists, and I think we can find proof.”

    • derek@infosec.pub
      6·
      3 days ago

      That would be apatheism. It’s not an alternative to the other claims but a disinterest in the problem space itself.

      Atheism is a spectrum of opinion ranging from “I neither accept claims including gods nor put forward alternatives” to “I claim no gods can exist and here’s why” with some wiggle room on both sides as the arguments devolve or extremify.

      Agnosticism is a strange participant as it lacks a cohesive definition. It’s more like a spectrum of reasons “adherents” think the claims made by others aren’t valid. It’s the last port of call for participants embroiled in philosophically rigorous metaphysical tedium and first stop for apatheists so disaffected they’ve never read a relevant text.