Agnostics claim to know that the existence of a deity is plausible.

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

Agnostics claim to know that the existence of a deity is plausible.

As an atheist, I'm agnostic to that.

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero I honestly dislike the meaning shift that agnostic is undergoing.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. The agnostic claim is that the divine is unknown and unknowable.

This is orthogonal to belief, which is covered by theism (belief it exists), atheism in the broader (or weaker) sense (lack of belief) and atheism in the strong sense (belief that no god exists).

[selzero@syzito.xyz]

@oblomov so agnostic is based on the presumption that deities do exist?

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@selzero no, agnosticism is the claim that it's impossible to know, regardless of existence.

This can be a basis for strong atheism («it's impossible to know, therefore it doesn't exist», which is basically Russell's teapot argument), but is also compatible with weak atheism («it's impossible to know, and/so I don't have a particular opinion about its existence»), but also with theism («it's impossible to know, but I still believe it exists», which is actually the basis of pure faith).