this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
739 points (93.3% liked)
Comic Strips
23394 readers
4561 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
π Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
ποΈ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
𧬠Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
π Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
β Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
β Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 π) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 π) will be removed.
-
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
-
πΏ Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why agnostic? Like... If there's no proof, why believe in the existence of a deity at all?
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.
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).
Most Christians think athiests just hate god. Basing your stance around irrational people is, itself, irrational.
I don't. I'm still an agnostic. I just don't tell people that if I think they won't understand and it isn't worth the time explaining it to them.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The textbook definition: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
That doesn't logically follow. You're ignoring the third option of simply not having an opinion.
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact.
That's very different from a strict disbelief.
Disbelief just means not believing something. Not believing that a claim is true is not the same as believing that that claim is false. A lack of belief in any deities is not the same as a belief in a lack of any deities.
The prefix a- means without. If one is without theism, then they are a-theist. There is no third option. You have theism or you don't. Having no belief one way or the other means you don't have it.
Disbelief means rejecting it, not having no thoughts or opinions on it
I'm about to flip a coin.
Can we make sure we're on the same page regarding the definition of belief? As I understand it, belief means accepting a claim. Disbelief means not accepting a claim.
Do you accept the claim that this coin will land heads? This is a yes or no question. If you withhold judgment, that means you do not accept that claim. You do not believe it will land heads. This is notably different from accepting the claim that it will land tails. Not believing that it will land heads is not the same as believing that it will land tails.
The most reasonable position is to not accept either claim. It's a 50/50 chance.
Theism means accepting the claim that there is at least one deity. You either do that or you don't. Any option you take that involves not accepting the claim that there is at least one deity means that you aren't theist. You are without theism. There's a word for that.
Are you going to define Animists and Daoists as Atheists?
Do they believe in deities?
Also, it often means "on," "in," or "at" (e.g., abed, ashore) or indicates a state of being (e.g., ablaze). It can also mean "in a manner" (e.g., aloud)
But now you're getting into etamology, not colloquial application.
Atheism, at it's heart, is an ideology. Agnosticism isn't.
You want to get into colloquial application? Here's some colloquial application
Here's some more. If you know who Rationality Rules is and don't like him, then it's worth noting that this came out before his controversy
Here's some more
Here's Wiktionary's take. That page lists both definitions.
Colloquially, I call myself an atheist. That's not an ideology, it's just an answer to the question of whether or not I accept the claim that there is at least one deity.
You're really just making my point for me. You're deeply ideological and heavily invested in Atheism as a philosophy.
Agnostics generally don't get this worked up. One reason why "Militant Agnostic" isn't a thing.
I'm not invested in atheism, I'm invested in correcting people when they say wrong and stupid things. Am I deeply ideological and invested in the definition of "spam," because I put 10 times as much effort into that one comment thread as I did this one? Nah, it just annoys me when people are wrong about things, and the more steadfastly you adhere to your stupid ideas, the more it annoys me
Especially when I continue to think of new and unique ways to explain my position, and instead of saying "I never thought of it like that, but that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!" You fuckin people continue to give me notifications saying inane shit like "the fact that you still think I'm wrong actually means I'm right"
What would it even mean for me to be "heavily invested in atheism as a philosophy" when I've made it absolutely crystal clear that my definition of atheism involves no claims of knowledge one way or another?
you can suspend judgement. that's the reasonable thing to do. it's literally the middle ground between accepting and rejecting a claim.
I really don't know how many other ways I can put it. Theism is defined as accepting the claim that there is at least one deity. You either do that or you don't. You're either theist or you're not. If you're some third option, that means you're not theist. if you're not theist, you're without theism. The word for when you're without theism is atheist.
agnostic is a viable third option
There's no third options here. You can't simultaneously accept the claim that there's at least one deity and not accept the claim that there's at least one deity. If you're doing the former, that rules out the latter. If you're doing the latter, that rules out the former. This shit is Boolean bro
you don't need to accept either claim. you can suspend judgement.
try reading into epistemology
I'm glad we finally agree. Not accepting either claim means you're an agnostic atheist. Have a good day
your semantics are dull
So aliens.
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.
You'd agree with more atheists than you'd think with that comment.
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)
Devotion to agnosticism is beautiful.
To me, it means I will passionately defend another person's right to remain "undecided" on all things spiritual.
It can be surprisingly effective in some circles.
i will also strongly defend their right to have faith in something that gives them the strength to get through this messed wp world. i will simply brook no bullshit from anyone who use their theological positions for control, and that includes authoritarian atheists.
But agnostics don't believe in the existence of a deity. Are you maybe confusing it with deism?
You can be an agnostic deist. Agnostic just means you have no firm belief. Most people who identify as "nones" in polls are technically agnostic, even if they personally believe in a higher power. Its a lack of certainty.
Most atheists are also technically agnostic atheists. A gnostic athiest would be someone who holds the absence of any higher being or spirituality as an almost axiomatic belief. Though they merely can be so certain that the small chance they're wrong seems irrelevant to them.
For simplicity, I've always explained agnosticism as the belief that "I don't know and neither do you".
Agnosticism isn't a lack of certainty; it's a lack of knowledge. I am agnostic about many, many things. For example, Bigfoot. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of Bigfoot (i.e., I have no knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot), so I don't believe in Bigfoot. I'm the same way with the existence of gods.
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.
We might be early, from how i understand the age of the universe. If we donβt great filter ourselves out of existence soon we may become the elder species. The universe is remarkably young
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.
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.
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.