Resistance1000
15961
509
40
Jul 28, 2026 8:02 AM
Resistance1000
15961
509
40
spangolio
I just assume that whatever there is at that level is far beyond my human comprehension. Assuming it *must* be something i can understand is a truly stupid premise.
Telemapus
Remember that Facebook page or Twitter account or whatever, called "Whale Facts" and it had a pic of an avocado labelled "This is not a whale" and people went absolutely fucking insane over that? I love that. That's my religion. Working out how to be a smartass at international scale.
Someshithead241
It is simply because many are unable to see the world beyond the worldview that has been drilled into them.
These people have been beaten over the head so hard that religion is all they can see, so when faced with this they have to put it in their own perspective, which is religion and god focused
Jackalblade
Speaking as an atheist, the way atheism is getting preached it's starting to feel like a religion, and it's making me pretty damn uncomfortable. I thought we didn't want thought control.
Resistance1000
I've been an atheist my whole life. I refuse to discuss the reasons why with anyone, even my friends, because the only language I have to describe why I don't believe in God always sounds to them like I'm attacking their beliefs, even though I am not. I respect their beliefs and they don't try to force them on me. We leave it at that. I do think some atheists are basically evangelists for it and that's as offensive as a religious person trying to convert me. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
NeoAcario
Refusing to believe in imaginary friends does not mean I have an imaginary friend belief. It is in fact a need to have things be real. At least, as real as anything can be in our shared subjective reality.
WhiteKnighted
Atheism is not a religion, but it *is* a religious preference (the preference not to have one).
dieselfury
Not at all, you can't have a preference for a negative proof. There is no word someone who has a preference not to have a beleif in unicorns. It's problematic, the burden of proof is on those making the claim something (religion) is true. Having a label for those unconvinced by the argument presented asserts there is a proven state to have a negative stance towards.
ThatGuyFromJustSouthOfTheMiddleOfNowhere
zirkoni42
I don't understand religions. How can a sensible person believe in any supernatural forces/beings. It's just so weird to me.
orthodoxorthography
Most humans crave certainty and purpose. And religion neatly serves to answer the big question: "Why am I?".
Leonon
Aboatism
echonite
What aboutism?
SufferingNobly
I would argue that a lack of belief would be agnostic, not atheist. Atheists believe there is no God, agnostics have no belief.
Xenarion
Yup.
MasterMookie
You can be an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist. Atheism only says one thing "you don't believe in gods"
SufferingNobly
Or believe in no gods.
NuclearGradeIrony
Wrong. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism is about belief.
SufferingNobly
Gnosticism is a totally different belief system, completely unconnected from agnostic lack of belief.
IHateItH3r3
People: How can you be a good person without religion? Me: How are you a horrible person with it?
inthepines
How messed up is it that you had to write down, "don't murder"? Like you might forget.
somethingdark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism There are multiple types of atheism.
Dannyalcatraz
While not a religion, atheism is considered a religious belief under US Constitutional law so that atheists receive all the same protections as everyone else.
IOW- despite 7 state constitutions- you cannot legally be discriminated against for housing, employment, the ability to hold public office, etc. because of being an atheist.
orukan
It has to be the absence of belief instead of the conviction of absence because the latter means Atheists would need to prove that there is no definitely god and proving that something factually doesn't exist is impossible.
I.E. People can say they don't believe in god but people are wrong to say that there definitely isn't a god. I don't believe there is one, but I've been wrong on so many things that all I can say for sure is "I dunno!"
Dyamonde
Not quite right. You can't prove the general 'there are no gods', but you CAN disprove specific gods, by showing contradictions in their definition.
flail
This is kind of silly though. Nobody applies this same standard to unicorns or bigfoot. I can dismiss the idea of a god just as casually as I can dismiss the idea of an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage. Until there is actual, credible evidence otherwise it's an idea that deserves no more respect than that.
orukan
1/2 Absolutely! You are completely free to believe that there is no god, bigfoot or invisible dragons. The problem arises when you try to prove that they don't factually exist. There are millions of factors you or I don't know about that could point to them existing and we'd be none the wiser.
You can think that these things don't exist, but as long as you can't prove that they don't exist, which is impossible, saying they don't exist isn't completely true.
orukan
2/2 If I make the statement "Blue elephants who fart hydrogen don't exist", you and I both know that such a creature doesn't exist on earth. What about other planets? What about at the microscopic level? The correct statement would be "These creatures don't exist on earth" or "There's no way to see such a creature with the naked eye", but saying that they definitely don't exist would be an overstatement until we have a better understanding of our universe.
flail
Sure. In the most clinical, literal sense you cannot prove a negative. But life would be pretty exhausting if you had to couch every single statement in that level of pedantry. A healthy model of belief allocates credence to things based on the probability of truth, which changes based on evidence. That doesn't mean that you need to pretend things could be real when they are nonsense. There are very few definitions of "God" that even pass the test of logical consistency.
orukan
Sure, people should follow the evidence to have the highest chance of being right. The problem with that is that the type of evidence used in these kinds of arguments can never raise the probability of truth to 100% because the subject matter is not sterile.
A person can have a healthy model of belief and still believe in silly things like fairies and leprechauns, as long as they can logic their way out of it when presented with facts that the current situation isn't related to that belief.
marsilies
I don't HAVE to prove a god exists, anymore than I have to prove there's no teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The onus is on the person making an extraordinary claim to prove it, otherwise the default is to assume it's not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
orukan
You're absolutely right! That's why I claim that people can't prove that god doesn't exist because then they would have to prove that he doesn't, which is impossible to do scientifically or otherwise. By saying that I don't know if god does or does not exist, I don't have to prove anything either! The onus would be on the person who claims that god does not exist to prove their claim, a claim I am not making.
marsilies
But atheism isn't claiming god definitely doesn't exist, it's just a lack of belief in a god existing. You're either stating atheism wrong, or have only encountered some wrong-headed atheists.
Xenarion
That's atheism vs agnosticism.
Atheist: There is no god.
Agnostic: We don't know if there is a god or not.
marsilies
Technically atheism is "I don't BELEIVE in a god," since the word is a compound of "a" = "lack" and "theism" = belief, just like agnostic is "a" = lack and "gnostic" = know. It's possible to be both an atheist AND agnostic.
ThatGuyFromJustSouthOfTheMiddleOfNowhere
VentusSolis
So one thing to consider is, in the image above it is telling you that the scene is about the boat, or absence of said boat. But the scene could just as easily say this is a lake, and the absence of the boat does not change the fact that it is still a lake.. the user is trying to say that in this case, religion is like the boat., but that seems to be a narrow view.
KR1570F
Not all religions require you to believe a boat exists and those are still religions. The premise of this analogy is flawed
Miller16of16
Arguably, absent the need for a belief in something that cannot be proven, you are no longer talking about a religion but something else. Eg you don't need to believe in reincarnation to practice buddhist exercise.
GrandmaSlappy
The boat is the entire religion/belief system in this analogy, not a god.
KR1570F
If the boat is the entire religion that suggests some people don't think Christianity is real. That's a bad read on the analogy. We know religions exists they just sometimes believe in sky daddies that aren't actually real
Revicus
I agree the analogy works better this way, but the image's text does specify "the absence of a belief in gods". I think specifying the absence of a religious belief system would have worked better, but I'm not sure if that's necessarily a widely accepted definition of atheism.
dieselfury
This is not the point. The point is you can't assign belief to a negative proof. Any religion claims that God exists or energy and spirit work in a certain way, or lord menu throw the tans in volcanoes. Whatever it is. When you make the claim, the burden of proof is yours. Not accepting a claim doesn't make you accepting a belief of counter-claim. Atheists are unconvinced there is sufficient or credible evidence to support any given religious claim, but giving them a label is a misnomer
KR1570F
problem of induction shows that the very principles of science are built on a belief we hold without having ever proven or tested it. there is no causal link between the future and the past. there is only an apparent one that no one can ever test
dieselfury
I mean, if you regress to epistemology then you can't hold a reasonable argument on anything. The universe may only have a current "state" and that configuration in whatever moment creates an experience where those events are recorded and you can discuss them. I identify as a single entity, there are other entities that I am not, however that manifestation truly happens that's the experience. And there is a shared recording of historical information in this state that enables induction
TheSecondPiewackit
I notice you keep ignoring the "belief" part of the analogy.
KR1570F
that's the literal opposite of the problem. science is a religion built on a flawed belief system that you think is so true you've never questioned your belief in it. like pretending you know what gravity is just because you saw an apple fall and hit someone on the head
TheSecondPiewackit
That's... great, dude. Tell me more about what you know I believe.
TheSecondPiewackit
You also might be having an issue keeping your conversations straight.
sirleoiii
You are correct. There are atheist Buddhists. There are atheist Unitarian Universalists. There are atheist Satanists.
Also this only works with a very, very specific definition of atheist thst is not only non-standard, but not all of the atheists in my life would agree on ANY one definition.
Zalm
The Satanic Temple doesn't believe in an actual Satan, even their 7 tenants day nothing of an actual deity of any kind
tentacularfleshscape
Tenets :)
TheS4ndm4n
Atheists believe that there is no God.
TheSecondPiewackit
Only if you're going by a hard philosophical definition. Colloquially this is accurate.
unclesporky
Whether or not atheism involves active belief in god, it does involve active belief in the correctness of your own position, otherwise you wouldn't claim to believe it. You wouldn't say "I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that atheism is a correct way to view cosmology." That would be absurd.
It also involves the active belief that others are wrong. You wouldn't say "I don't believe in god, but I think that Christian over there is correct that god exists." Equally absurd.
OatmealChocolateChipCookies
That's not how that works.
Pepeseinn
Atheists believe in gods just as much as they believe in the kraken, flying spaghetti monster and unicorns
Colopty
They probably believe in the kraken more, since that could just be a giant squid and those exist.
InoffensivePablum
*gods
kleinbotl
I also believe Nigel Farage is a fuckwad, doesn't make it a religion
MrRobSteel
Iunno, getting up once a week to congregate outside his house to call him a fuckwad has a certain appeal to it.
kleinbotl
I mean I'm not gonna stand here and say the milkshake story wasn't a bit of a religious experience for me
Xenarion
Yup. It's not a religion, but it is a belief. Agnosticism is the absence of belief.
dieselfury
It is not, you are assuming there exists a category to choose from. But if someone claims a cow exists in space, the burden of proof is on me to support the claim. You being unconvinced is not the same as holding a belief that there is now cow in space.
GravyEducation
I'll do you one better, cogito ergo sum. Anything else cannot be proven
dieselfury
Ill do you one better, Descartes sneaks the word "I" in there. What you can prove is "experience is occurring". The difference being awareness vs self.
PeakExponent
Small cog, proper posture, addition.
GravyEducation
That took me a while to get. It's this weed my friend. I stand by my cogitation
dieselfury
Not exactly that, atheiests are not convinced there is evidence to support the claim a god exists. Big difference.
jridley
Or, we are baffled why anyone would have come up with the idea of God in the first place. It's a symptom of being unable to conceive of the scale of the universe. A human brain being unable to wrap itself around the concept of infinity and deep time does not imply that there does exist an entity that does and had a hand in guiding the randomness of the universe and its existence.
dieselfury
Yeah, its funny most religions were driven by the discovery of agricultural cycles and the death and rebirth loop. Most gods (yahweh included) were storm gods. First we worshipped animals, then animals in the sky, then people in the sky. Yahweh was a lesser tribal god from the caananite pantheon which had baal and el eloheim. Even further, they borrowed from Marduk and the babylonians. Theres a forensic trail of mythology where you can see its invention.
TheS4ndm4n
That's agnostics.
dieselfury
Trying to frame it as a reduction to epistemology doesn't material change that it is a negative proof. The presence of a claim does not constitute the choice of a belief. There shouldn't even be a word for it at all.
marsilies
Technically atheism is "I don't BELEIVE in a god," since the word is a compound of "a" = "lack" and "theism" = belief, just like agnostic is "a" = lack and "gnostic" = know. It's possible to be both an atheist AND agnostic.
dieselfury
Sure, semantically all atheists are agnostic, that's fundamentally the basis of science. There is a claim, we don't know if its true or not. But then you reach the point of a negative proof. There is no valid way to prove "God does not exist", but that's an improper assignment. Some of these semantic terms arose from the persecution of people who weren't religious or in alternative religions. Agnostic originated as a softening counter to the gnostics, so its more categorial than semantic.
dieselfury
But ultimately, philosophy and alignment with definition will always vary, and our subjective interpretations of how those definitions apply. But at its core, when anyone makes a claim they believe is true it doesn't inherently create or constitute a belief in a counter-claim. You can be unconvinced in a claim without holding a belief that the negative state is true.
VulcanTourist
Nice analogy.
KR1570F
Not really. The analogy tries to suggest that if no belief in god then no religion except there are many religions around the globe with no god. It's only a good analogy with people who are dumb enough to think that Judaism Christianity and Islam are the only religions in the world.
noReallyIamPrincessBob
Would you please list these many religions around the globe without a god so I can learn about them?
TheSecondPiewackit
Buddhism is the first that comes to mind, but he's correct in that religions don't necessarily require a god.
Terran81
Define “theism”. Like in the words “monotheism” and “polytheism”. Glad I could help.
KR1570F
Explain to me why you think theism and religion are synonyms or what you think you are saying if not that.
Terran81
They are not. Theism means a belief in a god or gods. Atheism can go hand in hand with not having a religion but it does not have too. Grab a dictionary. I’m spiritual and don’t believe in a god. I’m an atheist but it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in anything. Religion does not require theism. You said so yourself. Having beliefs also doesn’t require religion.
enderite
Well, like any god claim, I also don’t believe in magic, afterlife, or I dunno… supernatural vibes in general.
Cause I’m not a child watching the statute of liberty being disappeared by David Copperfield.
KR1570F
You probably believe that tomorrow will resemble today and that's built on magical thinking.
enderite
No, that’s backed up with years of experience. While weather, traffic patterns, bills and whatnot change from day to day, those changes can be tracked, noted, and allows for predictions to me made.
It’s not magical.
It’s based on observation from years showing a range of predictability.
If it were to change drastically, well.. that’s possible too.
fknbastard
unclesporky
It is however up to you to defend positions you advocate for.
Atheism involves the active belief in the correctness of your own position, otherwise you wouldn't claim to believe it. You wouldn't say "I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that atheism is a correct way to view cosmology." That would be absurd.
It also involves the active belief that others are wrong. You wouldn't say "I don't believe in god, but I think that Christian over there is correct that god exists." Equally absurd.
mohammadbinsalmon
as an atheist: you can say that all you want, but the question of god is socially important to the point where ignoring it is pathetic
Resistance1000
You don't appear to have much pathos for the people who dismiss as pathetic.
pitje
Except that atheists tend to TALK about gods all the time, and their (non)existence.
Ah well, I kinda understand that if you're living in the USA and gods wants to invade your government and public life
rezpawner
This right here. If someone doesn't believe in any god, that's perfectly fine and reasonable. ALWAYS going on about it though, is insufferable, and it's just like any other religion. Missionaries of any faith or belief suck.
flail
If you're in the US, you're literally living through a Christian Nationalist fascist takeover of the government. I think it is fairly reasonable that folks might have gripes about religion.
Resistance1000
I've been an atheist my whole life. I refuse to discuss the reasons why with anyone, even my friends, because the only language I have to describe why I don't believe in God always sounds to them like I'm attacking their beliefs, even though I am not. I respect their beliefs and they don't try to force them on me. We leave it at that. I do think some atheists are basically evangelists for it and that's as offensive as a religious person trying to convert me. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
modis
Atheism, by definition is an active belief that deities do not exist. It is as much a belief as any established religion, but they are not an organized religion. Imo if every religious person comported themselves the way most atheists do, (just holding your belief, not needing to discuss it or analyze it or preach it) then the world would be a far better place. The only reason atheists get uppity is because organized religion is so unbearably in your face most of the time. 1/2
modis
2/2 I personally prefer agnosticism. I don’t know that there isn’t some all knowing being out there guiding the machinations of the universe, but until you prove it to me I’m not going to put any stock in it.
TheSecondPiewackit
In strict academic philosophy, sure, that's how those terms are defined, but words are polysemous. Colloquially, atheism just lacks belief.
marsilies
Technically atheism, by definition, is "I don't BELEIVE in a god," since the word is a compound of "a" = "lack" and "theism" = belief, just like agnostic is "a" = lack and "gnostic" = know. It's possible to be both an atheist AND agnostic.
NameGoHereInDisField
As others have mentioned, that atheism is by definition an active belief is just not true. gnosticism - agnostocism is the axis of knowledge, and it's orthogonal to theism - atheism. There are very few actual gnostic atheists I know of, that say "I know there is no god" instead of "I live my life as if there is no god, since there is no evidence for one".
NameGoHereInDisField
Although I think there's a fair point to make for collapsing that back again in the position "knowledge about the existence of a transcendent god is logically meaningless, so what people mean is they 'feel' that there's a god or not"
unclesporky
Whether or not atheism involves active belief in god, it does involve active belief in the correctness of your own position, otherwise you wouldn't claim to believe it. You wouldn't say "I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that atheism is a correct way to view cosmology." That would be absurd.
It also involves the active belief that others are wrong. You wouldn't say "I don't believe in god, but I think that Christian over there is correct that god exists." Equally absurd.
CommunCreator
Agnosticism is absence of belief. Atheism is belief in absence.
Agnosticism: “I don’t know if God exists or not.”
Atheism: “I do know God doesn’t exist.”
Skevoid
Agnosticism is a word that was literally invented to rebrand atheism because of negative connotations, it exists as a subset of atheism because the only extra thing it describes is a semantic trick about knowledge.
ManByTechnicality
Really it is two broad spectrums; agnostic - gnostic (range of certainty) and atheism - theism (range of belief in the divine). An agnostic atheist would belive there is no divine, but we can't rule it out, a gnostic atheist would be certain there is no divine, a gnostic theist is certain there is a divine, and and agnostic theist believes in the divine but can't rule out what it is or is 100% certain ot exists.
OatmealChocolateChipCookies
Nope.
marsilies
Technically atheism is "I don't BELEIVE in a god," since the word is a compound of "a" = "lack" and "theism" = belief, just like agnostic is "a" = lack and "gnostic" = know. It's possible to be both an atheist AND agnostic.
LicensedAdHominem
If they could understand basic reason they wouldn't be religious in the first place.
DonaldTrumpsFlaccidHairpiece
Eh, I'd disagree with you there, but I also understand where you're coming from. I'm religious, but also logical and reasonable. I would never try to argue factuality of my religion though, because I'm not fucking stupid, but I can be logical and reasonable about everything else, while still believing God exists out there somewhere.
reichtwinglunatic
what the fuck even is this post, atheism is by definition a BELIEF that there are no gods
TheForgewright
I think they're using 'belief' in the religion/spirituality context like one would use 'theory' in the scientific context, but since that's not strictly defined it muddies that water the boat/lack of boat sits in.
Sternfeuer
A belief is not necessary a religion. If you are conflating those 2 it makes it easy to argue that they are the same, which they are not.
OneMoreLime
The atheistic belief is that events can be explained in ways that don't all reduce to "because magical sun daddy said so"
CheHuyVOchkoPososiMolochko
Its neither denying that there’s a God or believing in it
FrolickingFrolicking
I’m pretty sure the thread/post has been brigaded by illiterate weirdos from somewhere.
1. Blatant wrongness about the word atheism
2. Obvious confusion about agnostic vs atheist
3. Blatant wrongness about the word belief. Brigade is pretending that you don’t “believe” an unprovable position or something
4. Weird creepy stubborn denial that atheism is a belief. (“I don’t “BELIEVE” that 2+2=4. I simply *don’t* believe that 2+2=5! I’m very smart.”
reichtwinglunatic
are we downvoting facts we dont like?
reichtwinglunatic
there are dictionaries with a definition to atheism. and atheism is a belief. i am just a messenger, if you don't like it, take it up with the dictionary people.
TheSecondPiewackit
No, you're just trying to assert that the colloquial definition doesn't exist in the face of the hard philosophical definition.
hirmus
atheism has two definitions. both are right (and wrong). argument over. didn't mean to stir shit.
TheSecondPiewackit
Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
hirmus
calm down everybody, we are both right (and wrong.) Lack of Belief (Negative or Soft Atheism) and Belief That No Gods Exist (Positive or Hard Atheism). so atheism has more than one meaning. pack your bags, this argument is over.
TheSecondPiewackit
So again... Is this your alt account? Because you're replying as though you're reichwinglunatic and the comments on this page are the first that the hirmus account has made in 13 years.
hirmus
yes, i forgot my other login info. not hiding that this is my alt.
xHasten
You’re using half of a description for a full definition which is the problem. A/theism speaks to belief. A/gnostic speaks to knowledge. The vast majority or atheists are agnostic atheists = i do not know whether or not a god exists, but i have no reason to believe one exists. Any combination of those four terms gets you an accurate description of theists and atheists. However, most working definitions of “knowledge” fall short of absolute certainty, so p much everyone falls under agnostic.
xHasten
The fact that after all these years, this is still a talking point by (in my experience) exclusively theists, tells me that you’re just being dishonest or parroting talking points from dishonest apologists
reichtwinglunatic
thanks for the insightful comment. all the atheists i've known believe there is no god, so that's what i thought atheism was. confirmed by dictionary. had to dig deeper. there really should be a bigger distinction between "i believe there is no god" and "i don't know if a god exists," because i feel these are completely different mindsets, not a subset of one mindset. i'm guessing these different atheists dont' really get along with each other..
TheSecondPiewackit
Hitchens made the distinction between "Atheist" and "Anti-theist" to solve that issue. Also your third one speaks to a different question.
Fuyu159753
I think the confusion comes from the word "believing". Most atheists do assume that there is no god, and colloquially they might say "I believe there is none." That's very different kind of belief than what religious people mean when they believe, because for them it replaces actual knowledge is more similar to "I know there is a god". With the same word, the atheist made a (reasonable) guess, while the religious person is certain.
LicensedAdHominem
No. Atheism existed before the first god was invented.
hirmus
"No" is not an argument dude. What about "definition" don't you understand lol?
reichtwinglunatic
what is your (subjective) definition of atheism then?
LicensedAdHominem
The default.
reichtwinglunatic
i don't even know what the hell you are trying to say, but atheism has a common definition and it means belief that there are no gods. if you have a problem with that, take it up with mirriam-webster and the oxford dictionary. your "default" probably has another name, but it is not atheism. by definition.
MasterMookie
Lack of belief that there are gods*
hirmus
actually, no need to correct me, because both definitions are correct
hirmus
by whose definition?
memepawn
I hate that this was downvoted to hell. It is 100% correct. Anyone who disagrees, go look it up in a dictionary. Atheists BELIEVE there is no god. Thats a belief.
DonaldTrumpsFlaccidHairpiece
I believe there are no dragons, not because it is a belief, but because facts and logic tells me this. Its different than me believing something that defies evidence. Its about nuance and comprehension, not just what word is where. And Im not even a fucking atheist and I get this lol.
memepawn
Your example is flawed. Facts and logic cannot, unequivocally, tell you there is no god. Even scientists will openly tell you there is much we do not comprehend about the universe. As such, you believe there is no god, but you have no proof… so it is a belief, not a fact. I AM an atheist, and I can tell you that this IS a belief, not just in the statement there is no god, but also the practices in which we follow with that premise in mind.
TheSecondPiewackit
Folks here have posted the dictionary definition, which also covers lack of belief in a god or gods.
reichtwinglunatic
thanks for the support, it seems that self-proclaimed atheists are a pretty obnoxious group. it's not like i'm arguing that there is a god, i'm talking about a textbook definition, but for some reason that upsets them incredibly
TheSecondPiewackit
You're talking about the difference between a hard philosophical definition, and a colloquial, as I've said.
memepawn
Sometimes the groupthink of Imgur is a little out of touch, IMO. It can swing really heavily towards the wrong answer at times, and downvote the hell out of those trying to point out simple logic.
TheSecondPiewackit
I mean, in this case, they're correct. You made two mistakes in your comment.
Camelspotting
Because there are multiple definitions and you are conflating them. You know it and are just doing it to be annoying.
reichtwinglunatic
eh man, you can believe that if you want. i did learn about the multiple definitions after i made those comments and after learning that, i tried to educate others and tried to own my mistakes. but i still stand firm that my definition is correct. it's just not the only correct one. i was being pedantic but i was not trying to be annoying, that was just a side effect.
Sainare
Check again. Definitions differ a little on the dictionary, but most mean absence of belief, OR belief of no gods. It includes both your definition and the post's definition
hirmus
yes, i dug deeper and you are correct.
KR1570F
Oh yeah conflating atheism and agnosticism and forgetting that there are religious beliefs that don't have a god but are still religions is all very reasonable and logical. /s
LicensedAdHominem
Agnosticism is the absolute highest form of intellectual dishonesty and manifestation of the arrogant attitude of enlightened centrism, which very well matches the egregious pedantry of decrying something as unreasonable just because it tried to be concise and non-circular in the space of a meme.
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
What a load of crap.
Agnosticism is a philosophical belief that whether or not God exists can not be known or understood. It is firmly rooted in the limitations of human knowledge and comprehension and has nothing to do with "decrying something as unreasonable."
It is the opposite of arrogance as it focuses on human limitation rather than superiority and smugness.
LicensedAdHominem
You don't apply this skepticism to other nonsenses, only "God", so you're just a cowardly deist.
IamIntoleranceIntolerant
Oh, really. How is it that you know me so well? Or is that your own arrogance talking?
By the way, I am an atheist. The kind that does not believe there is a god. I am not the kind that believes there is a god, but I also know that atheism covers both camps. I also am aware of the etymology of the word.
kirmokum
atheism and agnosticism are answers to 2 different questions and are not mutually exclusive. there are theist agnostics and atheist agnostics.
FlaminkoFactor
I've never seen agnosticism as intellectual dishonesty. It seems more like humility: If there is/are god/s, it is human hubris to declare it can be understood, seen/heard, or its essence put into words or text (or, even more dubious, that god favors you and will punish all others for not having your faith.) I didn't know that there was tension between atheism and agnosticism... There seems to be some overlap to me, although the former deals with belief and the latter in knowledge.
hirmus
dude that guy is a grade A neckbeard, he is talking about agnostic arrogance and superiority, while acting incredibly arrogant and superior. I'm guessing he thinks atheism is the best and only correct answer (irony much?) and he is being incredibly obnoxious about it. he blocked me when he ran out of (stupid) arguments. don't waste time like i did.
LicensedAdHominem
I asked you a question you didn't reply to and you say I blocked you. Talk about being full of yourself, incellimus prime.
LicensedAdHominem
Agnosticism is the act of elevating a bunch of monkey-brained implicit biases about the supernatural to the status of a formal philosophical position. It allows one to feel superior to the religious for not attaching any lore to it, and superior to atheists by claiming a technical correctness. That is despite never (and that's the best case scenario!) extending that much benefit of the doubt, this "humility", to e.g. Earth being flat or actually not existing either.
hirmus
yeah, cause your feelings are facts. every agnostic is agnostic just to feel superior. you use complex sentences to say absolutely nothing of value. the only person here with a superiority complex is you, and i'm guessing youre not agnostic.
FlaminkoFactor
What biases about the supernatural do agnostics hold? I'm legitimately curious because this is not my area of expertise and I thought if anything agnosticism was rooted in skepticism. Or is it that in your experience, agnostics do not pick a lane in order to feel superior to theists and atheists?
ostensiblystupid
Criticizing the Atheist isolated meme context through the lens of another belief system at all strikes me as an attempt to reconcile the cognitive notion, with internal rejection itself creating a reconciliation discrepancy.
The criticism is then externalized because a religious person is bouncing the idea off of load bearing cognitive asymmetries into a misdirect. This is an extension of why the meme was made to begin with.
universeHacker
I'm agnostic because organized religion is something I have zero interest in ever thinking about, or engaging with, even to oppose it, it's just not worth my time. Being "anti-religion" is not part of my personal identity, I haven no beef with religion, and understand how it works for some people, but it's just not for me personally.
LicensedAdHominem
Just to be clear, atheism is not anti-religion or anti-clericalism, despite the demographic overlap between the three.
Just ask yourself: do you give all notions, no matter how absurd, the same "maybe"? Say, that we're controlled by lizardmen? If not, if you EVER put your foot down, then why give deities more? So, is it really "unknowable" or just "too weak of a claim to entertain so you don't care"?
universeHacker
The fact is that just about everyone I've met that calls themselves atheist has made anti-Christianity their entire identity and personality, in the most obnoxious way possible, and I want absolutely nothing to do with that. I also think they are delusional about what Christianity (or any religion) actually is, intelligent religious people don't take it literally, they understand that "spiritual truths" are not "literal truths" - religion is more of a psychological tool than literal "truth."
JanCicvarek
Saved. Thanks!
Sherpafish
Atheists are no more obsessed with the lack of 'God' than they are by the lack of Baal, Dracula, or omniscient sparkle unicorns.
LostChats
Except on Imgur.
paynoattentiontousernames
Easter bunny, Coka Cola santa, winnie the poo, fucking elf on a shelf, Dora the explorer, Batman, Hercules, Odin, Poseidon.
tzahtman
As a long time Castlevania player I would say I'm at least a little obsessed with Dracula.
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
Bitch still owes me money, though
Sherpafish
Take it up with the fan fiction groupies.
Iplaybadguys
Moon knight? Is that you?
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
The slightly flabby version?
No
adamlstf9
HRHLordDonkeyPunch
About tree fiddy?
universeHacker
That doesn't seem to be the case to me, lots of "atheists" have made being specifically "anti-christian" practically their entire personality and identity, and are aggressively evangelical and dogmatic about it, in the same way the most annoying Christians can be. As an agnostic person that has zero interest in organized religions of any kind, extreme and obsessive hatred of Christianity in particular seems to me, to be essentially a particularly obnoxious and irrational form of Christianity.
marsilies
You may be hearing only some really vocal atheists. There's plenty of us that don't really care what you believe, as long as you're not impeding our rights, and just live our lives day-to-day without "preaching" about it. It's like how Christianity has been co-opted by vocal fascists trying to force their version down everyone's throats. Don't judge the entire group by a small number of vocal proponents.
iusedtodream
I am both an atheist and vehemently opposed to the Abrahamic religions. One is how I experience life, and the other is a few thousand years of observing how that belief system harns everything it touches. I don't believe Vishnu is watching me, but the Mahabharata didn't try to blame every woman in existence for literally all suffering on Earth.
Akurei00
I'd say there's 2 major factors at play here.
1) While some do, most atheists don't go around talking about their atheism all that often. It's easy to not realize that someone you're interacting with is an atheist. It's simply not often a factor in their day-to-day lives unless...
2) They are faced with an intrusive religious interaction. Religious people are often pushy, regressive, and talk down to people who don't believe what they do. It can be difficult to not want to push back.
Gippo53
Keitterman
I'm pretty sure that project managers used that same logic to hire programmers back in the day
LostChats
Or, that god just isn’t ready, yet.
Ryik
If he isn't ready, then it's because he either can't right now (not omnipotent) or won't. (malevolent) No motive or justification changes this. You are free to believe what you wish, but if a god is omnipotent and yet does not act, then that god ultimately consents to all human suffering. That is, by definition, malevolent.
hyperchondriac
A quote from The Sunset Limited, overlaid on an apropos image.
enderite
What’s he waitin for being everywhere ever when omnipotent and omniscient?
Pizza delivery?
OutboardOverlord
I've denounced my religious acquaintances. I'm done dealing with peoples' delusions.
KR1570F
the scientific method is built upon the delusion that the past will stand as evidence of what the future will be like. that has never, not once, been independently verified. Everyone that believes science just accepts that delusion as true and refuses to even challenge it. Bunch of hypocrites.
LostChats
You are correct. Evolution makes an assumption of how life actually begins and then builds on it. Nothing is observable or repeatable so it’s not even science. Notice that I didn’t say evolution is all false.
KR1570F
this is a bunch of shit. we absolutely can test hypothesis within evolution and we can observe things in the lab. We can observe genetic drift and mutation in the lab and then use those bench marks to compare various genetic sequences among animals at large and find relations and connections and even correlate the genetic drift components against fossil records to do comparisons on what we believe the timeline looks like. the problem of induction is nothing like the bs science of anti-evolution
TheSecondPiewackit
The theory of evolution is literally composed entirely of observations and repeatable experimentation.
enderite
Incorrect. Evolution is the study of the changes of living things over time.
Abiogenesis is the study of where life came from originally.
TheSecondPiewackit
You gotta put a /s at the end when you play it that dry, dude.
KR1570F
Bruv if you want to claim to be wiser than David Hume in the area of epistemology go for it. Tells me how seriously I ever have to take your opinion
TheSecondPiewackit
You seem to seriously have an issue inserting what you want someone to be saying into their mouths. Which, funnily enough, tells me how seriously I have to take /your/ opinion.
Revicus
This so closely resembles genuine bad arguments I've seen that my assumption at first was it was completely earnest until seeing /gallery/xL6Lux7/comment/2507607983. Poe's law is a harsh one.
KR1570F
You don't believe we can use genetic research to do an analysis for when two different species split from some larger group and use that to date their different separations from said group?
Revicus
No, that seems entirely plausible to me based on my layman's understanding of the subject. I think you've misunderstood. The comment I was replying to appeared to be written from the perspective of someone who very much WOULD say they didn't believe in that. But then the one I linked seemed to indicate the opposite. The result was confusion on my end, but a tentative conclusion that maybe the first comment was sarcastic. Am I mistaken? Maybe I've misunderstood and these are not contradictory.
Slugsie
Sure Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. But it is often categorised alongside religions so it can get the same legal rights and privileges those religions enjoy.
seriously9
Sweet does that mean I don’t have to pay taxes anymore?
DustInComp
I think it is a belief like bald is a hair *cut*. A belief in the absence of a god, not the absence of a belief.
DustInComp
some people seem to feel strongly about this
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Only a minority of atheists believe in the absence of a god. Most simply don't believe either way. Like if someone tells me there's a god, I say "I don't believe you". I don't say "I believe there definitely isn't a god". Very different positions.
FrolickingFrolicking
Is the thread getting brigaded by illiterate weirdos? What you described is agnostic not atheist.
LITERAL DICTIONARY DEFINITION: a person who doesn’t believe in existence of gods, or, denies existence of god.
A lot of incredibly obtuse stubborn people apparently think “believe” only applies to unprovable believes. Like “2+2=4, yes, but I don’t BELIEVE IT.” Actually yes you do believe it, belief means what your current understanding of truth is.
Slugsie
I have never heard of atheism being likened to a hair *cut*. But likening it to a hair colour is quite a common analogy.
DustInComp
I've never heard either tbh
Coltaine
Recently the humanist society in Norway got enough members to get government funding, so now they get money based on how many members they have. I'm guessing it's where most atheists go to have a community, although I'm pretty sure it wasn't exactly intended to be like that.
Butterupmybuttcheeks
While I know we Americans are nutzoid, there are apparently multiple athiest "churches" over here. As I understand it, they want the community aspect, without the religion. I assume it's them having trouble throwing away the lifetime of religious indoctrination completely, as I'd assume you could call it something different. Maybe it's to make folks transitioning away from a church life feel more of a familiar setting.
SirSmurfalot
'Churches' get a ridiculous number of legal protections and privileges that an ordinary club/organization does not get.
They are just taking advantage of those legal advantages to actually help the community.
LoudBirb
They're not churches, they're just community centers that label themselves as explicitly atheist or non-religious.
Churches traditionally provide a lot of services to a community, from charity to ceremonies (e.g. marriage, birthdays, etc) to community events. These community centers simply provide the same without attaching religious baggage to them.
marsilies
The Satanic Temple is a church that is atheistic in nature. Co-founder Malcolm Jarry stated that the idea of starting a Satanic faith-based organization was first conceived to meet "all the Bush administration's criteria for receiving funds, but was repugnant to them". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple
LoudBirb
Sure, but I'm addressing a question about Norwegian non-religious community centers. The person thought they were officially churches or were in some way labeled churches. They are not.
As far as I know, the Satanic Temple doesn't own or operate any buildings in Norway.
cbaggs32
I would argue most churches I've been in were more concert venue than community center.
Even without having ever been to an atheist church, and I do hope they label them as churches at least for the tax free status, I would comfortably assume they embody more of what Jesus wanted out of His followers than any of these "churches"
LoudBirb
They don't need to label them as churches to get the same tax benefits. The government there doesn't make a religious distinction in how they treat their non-profits.
So, no, they don't label them as churches at all.
marsilies
Note that humanism is separate from atheism, as atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods/religion, while contemporary humanism is a philosophy that refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance only on science and reason rather than revelation from a divine source to understand the world. You don't have to be a humanist to be an atheist, but most atheists are humanists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
androidshard
And frequently still does not get them. Had to tell the NHS my religion and they did not have an option for atheist.
So messed up they even needed that information to make a referral.
Slugsie
Every time I've had an interaction with the NHS and they've asked my religion there has been no problem with selecting Atheist. I've even worked on software for interacting with NHS systems, and the available options for religion always include atheist.
reichtwinglunatic
atheism is not a religion but it is by definition a BELIEF that there is no gods. so this whole post misses whatever it is trying to say.
FrolickingFrolicking
The downvotes on your comment (and all similar comments) show how illiterate, ignorant, and unintelligent a lot of people are.
theobituator
That's like saying the belief that there isn't a perfect scale model of the empire state building hovering 100m above the surface of lake Superior is a religion.
reichtwinglunatic
dude this is not my opinion by the way, it's the definition of atheism as per oxford dictionary and mirriam-webster. so you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the people that wrote the dictionary. but yes, it is A definition, there is another definition, but my definition is correct nevertheless. atheism is not a religion but it is a belief.
theobituator
Do you believe in the existence of the earth? Is that a belief?
reichtwinglunatic
dude i am not going to engage with your strawman argument, ive wasted too much of my life on this topic already. i don't understand what i did wrong, i literally pointed to the textbook definition of atheism. this is not my opinion, this is dictionary definition. why are we even arguing about it?
GrandmaSlappy
This. The religions I don't believe in aren't any different from any statement of the ridiculous.
reichtwinglunatic
i never said it was a religion. i said it was a belief. that definition is backed up by several dictionaries. you are arguing with a dictionary and i don't understand why. i will also add that there is another definition, which is different from mine. but mine is correct nevertheless.
Akurei00
I get your point and kinda agree. When someone asks another's religion and they respond "athiest", they are defining that "religion" category as an absence of it.
In your analogy, it's comparable to a bunch of groups claiming there's a building hovering over a lake. Some think it's the empire State building, some the white house, some that it's over Superior, others over the great salt lake. Lakligions. "Athiest" still populates that category, it's just defined by a lack of belief.
Slugsie
Atheism is not a belief that there is no gods. It's a statement that the proposition that gods exist has not met its burden of proof. It's basically the null hypothesis. I don't BELIEVE that there are no gods, I am unconvinced that god exist. Subtle but important difference.
reichtwinglunatic
dude, i am literally telling you what the dictionary says. atheism is a belief, as per oxford dictionary and merriam-webster. argue with them if you wish. but there are 2 different types of atheism, the definition i offered is correct, but there is another type. i am not telling you that you are wrong, i am telling you that i am also not wrong.
soThatWasThat
Isn't being unconvinced being agnostic?
Slugsie
Not quite. It's not a spectrum of Theist-Agnostic-Atheist. Agnostic/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge. I am an Agnostic Atheist. I am unconvinced that the proposition that a god exists is valid, but I have no knowledge to prove that. Basically as no one has demonstrable knowledge of the existence of a god, we are all agnostic on the subject. Some might claim to have knowledge either way, yet when tested the claims rarely withstands scrutiny.
Goldensands
No. An agnostic still believes in Something (just not an established something that some cult somewhere is using to oppress people). An atheist accepts the truth and lives with it.
reichtwinglunatic
great example of an atheist - they accept the truth, which is their truth of course.
Slugsie
Not even close.