this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
703 points (93.9% liked)

Comic Strips

22877 readers
2732 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Why agnostic? Like... If there's no proof, why believe in the existence of a deity at all?

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

For me personally, atheism is saying 'there is nothing more to the universe or reality, what you see is what you get' which is extremely pretentious. Agnosticism is admitting to the possibility that there's something going on here, but we don't know and would likely be incapable of understanding what it is.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

we don’t know and would likely be incapable of understanding what it is.

So aliens.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

I mean... No? Maybe? Certainly not aliens as in biologically evolved creatures from another planet are involved, what is so hard to understand about that? Alien as in something completely foreign and unrecognizable to the human brain, sure.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

Atheism: I don't believe in the existence of god(s)

Agnosticism: I haven't seen any proof for god thus can't believe in one

It's the same thing really, but without the "negative" connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists. "See, I'm not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I'm not to be expelled from this community as a heretic"

[–] Angrydeuce@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists. “See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”

This, basically. At least that's how I used it. As a kid living in the bible belt, admitting you were an atheist was, in their eyes, literally no different than being a cannibalistic devil worshipper. Agnostic was easier for them to swallow (albeit because odds are high that most of them didn't even know what it meant, and figured it was some sect of Christianity they were unfamiliar with).

When I got older, and escaped the institutional bigotry woven into nearly every facet of society down in the bible belt...the lovely place where our biology teacher also headed the bible club and refused to teach evolution yet somehow still had a job as a biology teacher in the public school system, as a small example...that was when I finally gained the confidence to self-describe as an atheist.

[–] FunnySalt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 13 hours ago

"See, I'm not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I'm not to be expelled from this community as a heretic"

I identity with this. When I was younger I identified as agnostic, as I saw it as a more socially acceptable option than atheism which allowed me to not have to pretend to be religious.

But I've identified as atheist for many years now. In my case by the time I did, everyone of significance in my life was nonreligious.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists.

Atheists and Agnostics would obviously disagree. There's a core philosophical difference between being convinced in the negative and being unconvinced in the affirmative.

That said, what are the consequences of being a Theist, an Atheist, or an Agnostic? I might argue that Theists and Atheists have history of leveraging their confidence into an active policy of discrimination and bigotry. Whether you're a Chinese Communist cracking down on under-18 church attendance or an Israeli Zionist conducting a pogrom against Palestinians, there's a habit of imbuing your personal beliefs with political teeth.

“See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”

The flip side of this being, "I'm not expelling you from the community for excessive display of religious ferver".

It's easier to sympathize with avowed Atheists in nations where atheism is a disenfranchised minority. But as soon as you give someone like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris an ounce of political capital, they start cheer leading a genocide.

That, I think, is a real tangible difference. Agnostics tend not to begrudge other ideologies in the same way.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Who says that atheism involves being convinced of the negative? I'm an atheist because I'm not a theist. I'm agnostic because I'm neither convinced of the negative nor the affirmative. Both labels apply to me.

[–] treesapx@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

You'd agree with more atheists than you'd think with that comment.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Atheism just means without theism. If you aren't theist, you're atheist. Agnostic describes the position of lacking belief one way or the other. A lack of belief is not the same as a belief in a lack. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, because the belief that there are positively no deities is just as baseless as the claim that there are deities.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Theism is belief in gods; atheism is the opposite of that: non-belief in gods.

Gnosticism is knowledge of gods; agnosticism is the opposite of that: no knowledge of gods. (There is also a religious movement called gnosticism. That doesn't relate here.)

The first is about belief and the second is about knowledge.

These are not incompatible. You can believe in something and claim to have knowledge of it (gnostic theism) or you can believe and claim to not have knowledge of it (agnostic theism). I have encountered Christians of both varieties.

For atheists, many (perhaps most) claim to have no knowledge of gods (agnostic atheism), and some claim that gods certainly do not exist (gnostic atheism). The latter demonstrate that the Christian exist, because logically an omniscient and omnipotent God can't also be omni-benevolent, since suffering obviously exists.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

I think we largely agree. Your comment is essentially a restatement of my point. Theism is a belief that they are gods, and atheism is a lack of belief that there are gods. That lack of belief can either come from a positive belief that there are no gods, or a withholding of belief one way or the other.

Speaking about myself specifically, it is equally untrue to say that I believe there are gods as it is to say that I believe there are no gods. The former means I am an atheist, and the latter means I am an agnostic. Both labels apply to me.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Eh, I think there's a decent semantic dispute for it. It's of course dependent on your definition of deity and is mostly an exercise of pedantry. However, with the size of the universe I think there's a pretty decent chance that there exists an intellectual being that could be interpreted as being god-like to the human perspective.

Now I'm not making claims that this proposed being has ever had anything to do with humans, nor are they responsible for any universal creation. Just that the universe is big enough for the existence of something significantly more advanced than humans. That being said, the size of the universe that allows for the possibility of this proposal also makes it possible existence mostly pedantic.

[–] HoopyFrood@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

We might be early, from how i understand the age of the universe. If we don’t great filter ourselves out of existence soon we may become the elder species. The universe is remarkably young

[–] froh42@lemmy.world 10 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

I was an agnostic for a very long time.

My main view of things - I couldn't know if there was a god or if there wasn't. But all that ultimate judgement shit never made any sense for me. If you're just behaving decently because of fear of ultimate judgment, then you're not a decent person. Ok if god would want me not to be an asshole, I'd need to be that out of my free will. And if a god demanded adherence to some random rules out of the blue - that god wouldn't have a moral compass and I wouldn't want to have to do anything with them in my life, being smitten down at the end would have been a consequence for me anyways.

I just want to be no asshole. So the question of there's a god or not. I don't care. God is irrelevant.

Thus: agnostic

I started staying I'm an atheist somw time ago, as that's just quicker and I can go by without explaining.

Still - if there's a god around, which is possible but improbable - I'm making sure I make fucking good use of the free will they gave me.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

The issue I had with calling myself "agnostic" is that most Christians think of it as "undecided" (which it isn't), so they'll try to convert you. If you tell them you're an atheist, they're more likely to leave you alone (in my experience).

[–] zemo@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I've always considered agnostics to be atheists who just don't wanna debate. At least that's why I used to call myself an agnostic when I was younger.

[–] Tonava@sopuli.xyz 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I used to say agnostic because at that point all the atheist discussion I saw in public was aggressively anti-theistic, and I found it equally stupid to very strongly believe in either direction about things there's simply no way to know. Now I just say atheist because it doesn't mean only "I hate religion with passion" anymore

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 5 points 17 hours ago

i call myself a devout agnostic. the justaposition of those words is inherently absurd since part of agnosticism and identifying as such is believing there is value to studying theology even if you yourself don't believe the theologies you're studying because ultimately prior to colonization, religion was how groups of people encoded and passed along their wisdom. however saying "devout agnostic" throws people enough off balance enough to introduce them to these concepts since so many say with their whole chest that they're something when traditionally these terms have meant something else to the people who use them.

for example, an astounding (at least to me) number of people say quakers and unitarians aren't christians. when you dig down on this you often find that this position is rooted in a believe (both positive and negative) that the fundamental mechanism and experience of christianity is trauma. however, when you look at the broader world of religion, you find that that's mostly only Christian denominations rooted in the theologies of the roman empire such as roman catholicism and the various european orthodoxies like Greek and russian. however, the oldest denomination, Ethiopian Orthodox, would i think to the people who say quakers and unitarians aren't christians, seem very unchistian. for that matter, i think so would Native America Christianity, Oriental Orthodox, and Armenianism. (fun fact, the Unitarian church is rooted in Oriental Orthodox, which is either the second or third oldest christian denomination)

[–] saimen@feddit.org -4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Atheism is just another belief

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it?

[–] saimen@feddit.org -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What's the proof that there is no deity at all?

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

I rest my case

It's impossible to prove a negative, but if you were as clever as you think you are, you'd already know that

I'm not even going to bother with the whole "burden of proof" thing because I don't think you're capable of understanding it