Why agnostic? Like... If there's no proof, why believe in the existence of a deity at all?
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
586 points (93.7% liked)
Comic Strips
22863 readers
1694 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Limit of two posts per person per day.
- Bots aren't allowed.
- Banned users will have their posts removed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
.. and piracy! yeah
As in the R.E.M. song: "boobs are my religion"
I serve the Omnissiah.
Blood for the blood god.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh…
You can just call yourself an atheist. Hell, if you call yourself a pastafarian you are basically an anti-theist.
Atheist and agnostic are not synonyms.
No, but if you also find all religions audacious and absurd, then wouldn't atheist be a more accurate term anyway?
I mean you go girl more power to ya but it definitely isn't easier to explain pastafarianism than agnosticism to normies. Noone except programmers and other too online people even know it exists (yes i am also a terminally online freak relax peeps, real recognize real)
Just show them the graph. Can't argue with hard data.
That's the neat part - you don't have to explain anything. You just assert the truthfulness of your religion and act offended when people point out how ridiculous it is.
Chad moves. Get theology-mogged you faithless heathencell
load more comments
(1 replies)
"I'm not religious"
Can't say I've ever had to explain anything more than that.
i prefer "i'm not superstitious"
load more comments
(10 replies)
I believe it's impossible to prove the existence of two gods.
I'm a diagnostic.
I don't drink tea.
I'm an atheaist
If this is you, consider joining or supporting The Satanic Temple. This is why they exist, and they do more meaningful and practical good than a meme religion.
"We don't like religious symbols in public space, so let's put more of these, yay!"
"Proselytism is bad, so we need to recruit more people to fight it."
"The guy at the top is not a Nazi anymore, so it's fine."
- statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged.
One of the core tenants of Pastafarianism is being too lazy or broke (or both) to actually contribute
Ramen.
RAmen
view more: next ›