Comic Strips

12520 readers

3092 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.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

624

Victory? [elder cactus] (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.eldercactus.com/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The belief is still there, even if you don't know it nor claim knowledge. You believe that the coffee is cold or warm, inferring it from tiny scraps of info, or... even based on stupid grounds, like wishful belief. Because the belief is not necessarily grounded on rationality; some Christians even highlight this, with their idiotic ~~credo quoniam sum stultus~~ "credo quia absurdum" ("I believe because [it is] absurd").

Read again that quote I posted earlier

That's a fallacy known as "the etymological fallacy" - you're trying to define a word based on its etymological origin (in this case, Huxley's usage when coining it), instead of its usage.

And even if the reasoning wasn't fallacious, look at the very Wikipedia page that you took this quote from, and you'll also get the following:

Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

He's saying that lack of belief + claim of knowledge is more offensive for him than belief + lack of claim of knowledge. Effectively splitting both things (belief and knowledge), and acknowledging that they do not necessarily follow each other.

The very basis of agnosticism is basing your belief or opinion in verified data.

Your *knowledge. Or rather, what you claim to know. ("Opinions" are third can of worms by the way, as they are not epistemic in nature.)

Those 2 things are the polar opposites, and agnostic theist an oxymoron

Personally I opine agnostic theism to be ridiculous, as any sort of theism; as a rationalist I'd rather tweak my beliefs to be in conformity with my knowledge. And as I implied in another comment, I don't see any good reason to put gods in a higher standard than the Tooth Fairy or centaurs, when it comes to claiming knowledge of absence, for practical purposes.

However that does not mean that agnostic theist is an oxymoron. It boils down to someone who believes in that superstition without claiming knowledge over it.