In my experience, the practical difference in beliefs between a self-professed atheist and a self-professed agnostic is incredibly minuscule. The difference typically just ends up being whether the individual prefers to stress that they are an agnostic atheist or that they are an agnostic atheist.
If you view belief as being a two-axis chart (theist/atheist one one axis and agnostic/gnostic on the other), the “gnostic atheist” portion has a vanishingly small number of people in it. And if you’re viewing it as a single-axis system with “agnostic” in the middle, that’s a viewpoint that just muddies the water, since hardly any atheists claim to have any absolute certainty on the issue (instead usually adopting a “No reason to believe until presented with convincing evidence” position).
I don’t know if there’s a God, and I don’t pretend to anything more or less than that. Although I do look askance at anyone else’s claim to be certain either way, which in the immortal words of Phil Foglio makes me a practitioner of “Militant Agnosticism – ‘I don’t know and you don’t either!
EvilMidnightLurker
‘”
Agemegos
That’s pretty close to what Huxley meant “agnostic” to mean when he coined the term.
StClair
Same here.
Captain Oblivious
I love this and thank you for attributing it. I need to take a closer look at Phil’s work.
ego
are you sure about the tooth fairy? i mean, impossible to prove a negative, right?
im agnostic when i don’t feel like having the SAME. DAMN. CONVERSATION. again and yet again. when im feeling spunkier, i go top shelf: “I don’t believe and YOU DON’T EITHER”.
Woden87
Yes, however, that very same certainty of uncertainty means that you lack belief in any specific deity — you are open to the possibility, but you are not a worshipper or practitioner of any faith. By the majority of definitions, you would qualify as an atheist. This is what I was getting at when I mentioned stressing the agnosticism versus the atheism of being an agnostic atheist.
Woden87 – You are completely ignoring the fact that belief has different meanings. When the DOA characters do things that to me seem odd or out of character, I keep reading the comic because I believe in Willis. This has little to do with whether I believe in the literal existence of Willis or believe the name is a pseudonym for Jeph Jacques.
Agemegos
It’s worth trying to escape possible ambiguity by considering the use of words such as “trust”.
clif
Can you trust a god you don’t believe in?
drs
I can trust him not to bug me! 🙂
> ‘It all depends on what you want,’ put in Merry. ‘You can trust us to stick to you through thick and thin – to the bitter end. And you can trust us to keep any secret of yours – closer than you keep it yourself. But you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone, and go off without a word.
Agemegos
No, but I can believe in a comics writer I don’t trust.
Who would not be D.Y. Willis, of course, No more that Descartes’ Demon would be God.
Roborat
I believe in Sir Willis as well, however, that is because I have met the man.
Captain Oblivious
Heretic! Clearly Jeph Jacques is a nom de plume of Willis. Kinda like Nora Roberts writing as JD Robb. You can do an archive dive on the wayback machine to find evidence.
Such a damnable heretical position as the other way around can only condemn you to the fires chairs of burning diaper eating.
“Gnosticism” as an opposite to “agnosticism” is a bad choice of a term. “Strong atheism” is the term I’ve seen used to describe the certainty that no gods exist. There’s already something called gnosticism, and it’s a group of mystery religions, some of which were a precursor to Christianity.
There are such people as agnostic theists (including agnostic Christians) but the taboo against doubt among the faithful means they’re not going to identify themselves that way, so most of the people who identify as agnostic, at least in religious countries like the US, are agnostic atheists. Who don’t like the connotations of the term “atheist”.
There are lots of specific gods that I know don’t exist, for various evidentiary reasons like “they’re self-contradictory” or “their bios include events that didn’t happen” or “if they existed as described the world would necessarily be different than it is”. Also, looking at the set of entities that aren’t disproven by the above sorts of things, I have realized that I personally wouldn’t consider them to really be a god, as opposed to a mere supernatural entity. So, despite being entirely receptive to being proven wrong by evidence, I have sort of stumbled into hard atheism based mostly on the fact that just because some wimpy amoral yahoo calls itself a god, I don’t have to agree with them.
clif
And I think you are proceeding on the assumption that reality is singular. Whereas I believe the Universe is too complex to be understood in a single way and is best captured by thinking about it in levels and things that are absolutely true on one level can be completely false on another.
For instance, there is no such thing as the color of an object. Light has wavelengths, and light interacts with objects in various ways, but we don’t experience the wavelengths. What we perceive as color (most of us anyway) is an illusion completely created in our brains which automatically correlates receptors of three relatively narrow frequency bands and corrects for different things, sometimes using different strategies, as became apparent awhile back on social media with the picture of a dress that some people saw as one color and other people saw as a completely different color. The fact is, color is an illusion and not really a property of an object.
And for all that I am wearing a blue shirt.
I can’t speak for your experiences, but in 70+ years I’ve seen and experienced a fair amount that just doesn’t fit into consensus reality. None of which means I don’t find consensus reality a good tool for understanding most things. But there are levels and I also believe things that would probably curl your toes.
Not trying to change your beliefs necessarily, but sometimes things that aren’t strictly true (on one level) are the most true.
I feel like putting a title on it makes it more difficult for her. Like just let people be people. Everyone has a different relationship with faith or lack there of.
… was that a problem with not wanting a label, or was that a problem with not actually knowing what the label means?
… because yes, it’s like that.
Lingo
Well, she wouldn’t really admit to not being straight either. Instead she tried to normalize same-sex relationships as something all straight women do.
clif
I am completely normal.
I do X.
Therefor it is normal to do X.
Impeccable logic.
StClair
Exactly.
CJ
I’m a woman.
I do X.
So women do X, it’s completely normal, was my take on life as a teenager. I really was, and still am, annoyed with people who question my gender. I’m a cis woman and still people question, because their idea of what a woman is is rather narrow.
Greebs
I have the opposite problem of having too broad an idea, which leads to embarrassment, especially with nonbinary folks, since there are apparently culturally accepted visual cues I have a habit of assuming are just personal aesthetic choices!
CJ
I wonder if I would miss out on most of them, too.
thejeff
Impeccable logic, but with unfortunate connotations. “I’m normal, not like one of them.”
clif
Thank goodness, I’m not one of them. People who are not me can be so annoying.
CJ
@thejeff: Sorry, I don’t get what you are trying to say.
thejeff
It could technically be read as “queer/bi is normal and I don’t like labels”, but the connotations lean heavily towards “I’m not queer, I’m normal”, which strongly implies there’s something wrong about actually being queer.
Especially since her character growth has leaned into her accepting she is queer.
Julez
I mean to be fair I also had that logic about checking out women when I was younger. Course I also learned that wasn’t the case when I was in middle school, not college.
I feel like agnosticism is the true Pascal’s wager. I mean, faith is faith, by definition you can’t force it or logic it out, but agnosticism holds the door open for the existence of something our meat brains can’t comprehend. Anyway, most religions say a “mustard seed of faith” is sufficient.
UrsulaDavina
The point of the wager was Pascal’s way of saying you have nothing to lose if you believe in God beacuse if there is none then you lose nothing but if there is one you lose everything.
Basically just belive in God you have nothing to lose (if you ignore a whole bunch of things)
Since agnosticism does not take a leap towards one way or the other it would probably anger him (if he was still alive and not a skelton in the ground).
BarerMender
Yeah, but made Pascal so sure his god was the right one?
Pascal was a European Math guy, so could use a generic European sort of God, a sort of Emotionally Distant Paternalistic being who approached Infinity Omnipotence/Goodness/Omniscience without you having to divide by zero and wonder why babies die of disease.
335 thoughts on “One of those”
Ana Chronistic
“like how I (barely admit I) like ding-dongs… just not on me”
go with you’re athorist, Joyce
Undrave
“So you like ding-dongs on other people?”
AGV
She’s a voyeur
Charles Spencer
That’s good enough for Falwell Jr’s version of Christianity.
SpookyFox
an ain’theist
not someone else
Could be agnostic! Or apatheist!
But probably she’s just scared.
PB
Yeah, that’s what I’m getting too.
Woden87
In my experience, the practical difference in beliefs between a self-professed atheist and a self-professed agnostic is incredibly minuscule. The difference typically just ends up being whether the individual prefers to stress that they are an agnostic atheist or that they are an agnostic atheist.
If you view belief as being a two-axis chart (theist/atheist one one axis and agnostic/gnostic on the other), the “gnostic atheist” portion has a vanishingly small number of people in it. And if you’re viewing it as a single-axis system with “agnostic” in the middle, that’s a viewpoint that just muddies the water, since hardly any atheists claim to have any absolute certainty on the issue (instead usually adopting a “No reason to believe until presented with convincing evidence” position).
EvilMidnightLurker
I don’t know if there’s a God, and I don’t pretend to anything more or less than that. Although I do look askance at anyone else’s claim to be certain either way, which in the immortal words of Phil Foglio makes me a practitioner of “Militant Agnosticism – ‘I don’t know and you don’t either!
EvilMidnightLurker
‘”
Agemegos
That’s pretty close to what Huxley meant “agnostic” to mean when he coined the term.
StClair
Same here.
Captain Oblivious
I love this and thank you for attributing it. I need to take a closer look at Phil’s work.
ego
are you sure about the tooth fairy? i mean, impossible to prove a negative, right?
im agnostic when i don’t feel like having the SAME. DAMN. CONVERSATION. again and yet again. when im feeling spunkier, i go top shelf: “I don’t believe and YOU DON’T EITHER”.
Woden87
Yes, however, that very same certainty of uncertainty means that you lack belief in any specific deity — you are open to the possibility, but you are not a worshipper or practitioner of any faith. By the majority of definitions, you would qualify as an atheist. This is what I was getting at when I mentioned stressing the agnosticism versus the atheism of being an agnostic atheist.
clif
Woden87 – You are completely ignoring the fact that belief has different meanings. When the DOA characters do things that to me seem odd or out of character, I keep reading the comic because I believe in Willis. This has little to do with whether I believe in the literal existence of Willis or believe the name is a pseudonym for Jeph Jacques.
Agemegos
It’s worth trying to escape possible ambiguity by considering the use of words such as “trust”.
clif
Can you trust a god you don’t believe in?
drs
I can trust him not to bug me! 🙂
> ‘It all depends on what you want,’ put in Merry. ‘You can trust us to stick to you through thick and thin – to the bitter end. And you can trust us to keep any secret of yours – closer than you keep it yourself. But you cannot trust us to let you face trouble alone, and go off without a word.
Agemegos
No, but I can believe in a comics writer I don’t trust.
Who would not be D.Y. Willis, of course, No more that Descartes’ Demon would be God.
Roborat
I believe in Sir Willis as well, however, that is because I have met the man.
Captain Oblivious
Heretic! Clearly Jeph Jacques is a nom de plume of Willis. Kinda like Nora Roberts writing as JD Robb. You can do an archive dive on the wayback machine to find evidence.
Such a damnable heretical position as the other way around can only condemn you to the fires chairs of burning diaper eating.
wrog
just in case anybody was wondering: Gnostic is not actually A Thing
Agemegos
I get a fraud warning when I follow that link.
Corneel
It is Richard Carrier, so that is not surprising.
Sunny
Firefox says that site is a potential security risk.
Agemegos
Article about Gnosticism on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Huehuetotl
“Gnosticism” as an opposite to “agnosticism” is a bad choice of a term. “Strong atheism” is the term I’ve seen used to describe the certainty that no gods exist. There’s already something called gnosticism, and it’s a group of mystery religions, some of which were a precursor to Christianity.
There are such people as agnostic theists (including agnostic Christians) but the taboo against doubt among the faithful means they’re not going to identify themselves that way, so most of the people who identify as agnostic, at least in religious countries like the US, are agnostic atheists. Who don’t like the connotations of the term “atheist”.
begbert2
There are lots of specific gods that I know don’t exist, for various evidentiary reasons like “they’re self-contradictory” or “their bios include events that didn’t happen” or “if they existed as described the world would necessarily be different than it is”. Also, looking at the set of entities that aren’t disproven by the above sorts of things, I have realized that I personally wouldn’t consider them to really be a god, as opposed to a mere supernatural entity. So, despite being entirely receptive to being proven wrong by evidence, I have sort of stumbled into hard atheism based mostly on the fact that just because some wimpy amoral yahoo calls itself a god, I don’t have to agree with them.
clif
And I think you are proceeding on the assumption that reality is singular. Whereas I believe the Universe is too complex to be understood in a single way and is best captured by thinking about it in levels and things that are absolutely true on one level can be completely false on another.
For instance, there is no such thing as the color of an object. Light has wavelengths, and light interacts with objects in various ways, but we don’t experience the wavelengths. What we perceive as color (most of us anyway) is an illusion completely created in our brains which automatically correlates receptors of three relatively narrow frequency bands and corrects for different things, sometimes using different strategies, as became apparent awhile back on social media with the picture of a dress that some people saw as one color and other people saw as a completely different color. The fact is, color is an illusion and not really a property of an object.
And for all that I am wearing a blue shirt.
I can’t speak for your experiences, but in 70+ years I’ve seen and experienced a fair amount that just doesn’t fit into consensus reality. None of which means I don’t find consensus reality a good tool for understanding most things. But there are levels and I also believe things that would probably curl your toes.
Not trying to change your beliefs necessarily, but sometimes things that aren’t strictly true (on one level) are the most true.
Greebs
Oh I Like Apatheist, I might have to steal that… kind of embarrassed I didn’t think of it myself!
anonymousethatscurriesinthedarkness
Apatheism from the church of Meh.
clif
It’s the Militant Apatheists you have to watch out for.
Jhon
Interesting. Do you have tracts?
thejeff
Huge tracts of land.
Librain
It’s on the agenda for the next meeting.
I’m not sure when that’s been postponed till though…
jy3
Another one is Ignostic: “the term ‘god’ is not defined well enough to evaluate the statement ‘a god exists’.”
Devin
Ahhhh, apatheist. Very difficult to tell from the extremely similar brontotheist. Caused much confusion in the community.
clif
Hail Eros.
leaf
I think she definitely cares about this too much to be an apatheist.
BBCC
It always is, sweetie. It always is.
Doctor_Who
One day Carla will mix Joyce and Dorothy’s DNA in a test tube, send it through a spacetime warp, and it will grow up to be Leslie Knope.
Jo Giggles
Omg. I see it.
JessWitt
+1. We need thumbs up over here.
Jeff K!
°o°
Kinoko
Yeah, that checks out.
OBBWG
Perfect comment for Amy Poehler’s birthday.
Nono
I like Sarah’s quiet acknowledgement that despite being an atheist herself (maybe?), she knows she’s not Joyce’s favourite person.
Hazel
She’s happy in the knowledge she’s in the top ten.
Reltzik
Being Joyce’s favorite person would mean that Joyce would want to spend more time with her when Sarah wanted to be alone.
Deanatay
Sarah’s Joyce’s sister. Sisters are NEVER best friends, usually the opposite.
They love each other, but that’s a completely different emotion.
Sirksome
I feel like putting a title on it makes it more difficult for her. Like just let people be people. Everyone has a different relationship with faith or lack there of.
Lingo
It’s like Billie not being able to call herself bisexual.
drs
Ooh, good example!
Reltzik
… was that a problem with not wanting a label, or was that a problem with not actually knowing what the label means?
… because yes, it’s like that.
Lingo
Well, she wouldn’t really admit to not being straight either. Instead she tried to normalize same-sex relationships as something all straight women do.
clif
I am completely normal.
I do X.
Therefor it is normal to do X.
Impeccable logic.
StClair
Exactly.
CJ
I’m a woman.
I do X.
So women do X, it’s completely normal, was my take on life as a teenager. I really was, and still am, annoyed with people who question my gender. I’m a cis woman and still people question, because their idea of what a woman is is rather narrow.
Greebs
I have the opposite problem of having too broad an idea, which leads to embarrassment, especially with nonbinary folks, since there are apparently culturally accepted visual cues I have a habit of assuming are just personal aesthetic choices!
CJ
I wonder if I would miss out on most of them, too.
thejeff
Impeccable logic, but with unfortunate connotations. “I’m normal, not like one of them.”
clif
Thank goodness, I’m not one of them. People who are not me can be so annoying.
CJ
@thejeff: Sorry, I don’t get what you are trying to say.
thejeff
It could technically be read as “queer/bi is normal and I don’t like labels”, but the connotations lean heavily towards “I’m not queer, I’m normal”, which strongly implies there’s something wrong about actually being queer.
Especially since her character growth has leaned into her accepting she is queer.
Julez
I mean to be fair I also had that logic about checking out women when I was younger. Course I also learned that wasn’t the case when I was in middle school, not college.
plasticwrap
What’s wrong with being agnostic?
UrsulaDavina
To me nothing I am one and I am fine. But Pascal will get all bent out of shape about it.
meanderling
I feel like agnosticism is the true Pascal’s wager. I mean, faith is faith, by definition you can’t force it or logic it out, but agnosticism holds the door open for the existence of something our meat brains can’t comprehend. Anyway, most religions say a “mustard seed of faith” is sufficient.
UrsulaDavina
The point of the wager was Pascal’s way of saying you have nothing to lose if you believe in God beacuse if there is none then you lose nothing but if there is one you lose everything.
Basically just belive in God you have nothing to lose (if you ignore a whole bunch of things)
Since agnosticism does not take a leap towards one way or the other it would probably anger him (if he was still alive and not a skelton in the ground).
BarerMender
Yeah, but made Pascal so sure his god was the right one?
BarerMender
*what made Pascal*
RacingTurtle
Mostly water
Fred
Pascal was a European Math guy, so could use a generic European sort of God, a sort of Emotionally Distant Paternalistic being who approached Infinity Omnipotence/Goodness/Omniscience without you having to divide by zero and wonder why babies die of disease.