New York, NY — In a world where religious and philosophical disputes often simmer beneath the surface, a new, unprecedented conflict has erupted, not with a bang, but with a resounding “meh.” Agnostics, long considered the Switzerland of theological debate, have launched what can only be described as the most indifferent “terror” attack in history against their close cousins, the atheists.
It started with a barrage of pamphlets, not so much thrown as absentmindedly left in cafes and bookstores across the city. These leaflets, filled with shrugs and noncommittal statements like “Maybe there’s something, maybe there isn’t. Who’s to say?” have baffled coffee drinkers and bookstore browsers alike.
In what can only be a masterstroke of apathetic aggression, agnostic protestors staged a debate outside the New York Public Library. Their main argument? A resounding, “Well, we can’t really be sure, can we?” Spectators left more confused than convinced, unsure if they’d witnessed a protest or a group of people aggressively agreeing to disagree.
Character Profiles: The Faces of Indifference
I spoke to Jamie Smith, one of the leaders of the agnostic movement, who told me, “We’re not saying we’re right. We’re also not saying we’re wrong. We’re just saying… you know?”
On the other side, atheist spokesperson Alex Johnson argued, “Their uncertainty is infuriating. We demand clear disbelief, not this wishy-washy maybe-ism!”
The interview quickly devolved into a debate, with Smith shrugging in response to Johnson’s every assertion and Johnson growing increasingly exasperated at Smith’s noncommittal grunts.
The rivalry, as much as one can call it that, has a storied history. It dates back to the first time someone shrugged when asked about the meaning of life. This Great Indifferent Schism has historically seen monumental non-events such as the ‘Great Maybe’ of 1985 and the ‘Ambivalent Accords’ of 1997.
Absurdity in Action
In a bewildering move, the UN proposed a peacekeeping force dubbed ‘Operation Indifference.’ Their mission? To ensure both sides remain equally unsure of each other’s intentions. Meanwhile, a proposed ceasefire agreement based on a mutual agreement to disagree has both sides nodding, then shrugging.
In conclusion, this “conflict” between agnostics and atheists is a tempest in a philosophical teapot. As much as they bicker, their arguments are as impactful as a feather landing on a pillow. In a world rife with genuine strife and discord, this battle of wits (or half-wits, depending on your perspective) is a welcome, if bewildering, distraction.
Michael Stephen is a man with two first names, an author, and an occasional cable television access personality. He has no theological training but finds the existential kerfuffle between agnostics and atheists amusing.
