Unpopular Opinion Puffin

Agnostics are at least more honest. They are just not sure.

Agnostics are humbler than atheists but I have a problem when agnostics try to impose the limits of their "not knowing" on others.

Closed Agnosticism refers to the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a God exists or not, and neither can you." Open Agnosticism holds to the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deity is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."
I'm an Open Agnostic but lean toward the Pragmatic agnosticism side.
Pragmatic agnosticism is the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

Does it count as a repost if it's Pascal's Wager?

Lol I was going to just post Pascal's Wager but uploading images on here doesn't work on my phone

Atheists get mad when you tell them a simple truth like that.

[image deleted]

That's not an unpopular opinion, it's a popular misconception. Do you have to exercise faith in the non-existence of Odin, Thor, Zeus, Hades, the toothfairy, Cthulhu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster? To quote Bill Maher: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position."

You make a good point, although only the first four examples support it. Odin, Thor, Zeus and Hades were actually objects of faith at some point in human history. That being said, if faith can be described as belief in a being without sufficient proof (i.e. tangible) then the belief in not-being without sufficient proof is the same thing.

There is no difference between all the examples I named. The argument is valid and the same for any possible object you can imagine. Your last sentence shows the root of this misconception (and suggests you might not have understood the Maher quote). Atheism is not the belief in not-being, it is the lack of belief in being. The distinction is crucial and it is the reason why atheism requires no faith, let alone the same kind of faith as does religion. In a very real sense, atheism is exactly the opposite of religious faith, because it is by definition the lack of it.

It may not be a misconception if I simply disagree with the point you make. My point is simply that: If faith in a god requires belief without tangible evidence, then belief in no-god also requires the same faith. An atheist has to state that they KNOW with certitude there is no god, and they make that statement without any tangible proof. A believer makes the same statement but only in favor of a deity, and still without tangible evidence. Atheists fall into the same problems that believers do when it comes to proving a something that can only be accepted. At some point a believer or an atheist decides that they will believe as they do. That is an act of faith. Bill Maher's analogy is not a good one because it is using something that can be observed, which faith in a deity or no-deity does not include by the nature of the object we are discussing. Toothfairy is a known social construct, Cthulhu comes from literature and flying spaghetti monster is satire, so these are not helpful to your point, IMHO.
This does not apply to agnostics who say they are not sure one way or the other. I have no skin in this game btw, I am neither a believer, agnostic nor atheist. So think how that is possible!

Mine own cousin uses ios 15 and that gent downgrad'd
Mine own cousin uses ios 15 and that gent downgrad'd