I serve the Omnissiah.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh…
And the piracy, of course.
You can just call yourself an atheist. Hell, if you call yourself a pastafarian you are basically an anti-theist.
If this is you, consider joining or supporting The Satanic Temple. This is why they exist, and they do more meaningful and practical good than a meme religion.
One of the core tenants of Pastafarianism is being too lazy or broke (or both) to actually contribute
I mean you go girl more power to ya but it definitely isn’t easier to explain pastafarianism than agnosticism to normies. Noone except programmers and other too online people even know it exists (yes i am also a terminally online freak relax peeps, real recognize real)
Just show them the graph. Can’t argue with hard data.
That’s the neat part - you don’t have to explain anything. You just assert the truthfulness of your religion and act offended when people point out how ridiculous it is.
Chad moves. Get theology-mogged you faithless heathencell
Gotta love how one person writing a silly essay, which didn’t have anything to do with atheism, just being a gaff, got turned into something very atheist and very serious.
“I’m not religious”
Can’t say I’ve ever had to explain anything more than that.
i prefer “i’m not superstitious”
So how will you teach little girls that they’re the problem? How will you fondle little boys? How will you comitt a genocide to prove that your religion is more moral?
You can do all of those without having to actually believe in a specific religion. And the first two happen very easily without religion.
For real. Literally you can just say, “You are the problem. All girls and women are the problem.” There’s zero need to bring God into the equation to live a good, normal life.
Wtf are you talking about?
It’s a sarcastic counter to the typical arguments that there’s no inherent morality in human culture without religion. You know, people don’t naturally have empathy, so they have to be taught to simulate empathy because they beleive they’ll be judged when they die.
But what does that have to do with my comment?
If you’re not religious, how else do you achieve any of the things I mentioned?
Generally in atheistic communities discourse around religion tends to be around where religion is used to replace science, often as a means of control of behavior and othering of out groups.
Speculating, that is likely because many people join these communities after being ostracized or faced abuse at the hands of people in the in-group so it makes sense that those are the aspects of religion that stand out most to them are those aspects.
There is a reason communities have had religious and spiritual practices for millennia, they do provide concrete benefits and social good in terms of community building and as forms of cultural preservation and providing support systems, both emotional and material. Those aspects tend not to be talked about in atheistic and skeptic communities. Not saying they’re obligated to balance every negative comment with a positive one out of some misguided sense of fairness or balanced discourse but if you’re interested in having some kind of well rounded view of the world, it is helpful to understand positive aspects of things you generally disagree with.
In this case, if someone is arguing religion be removed completely it is important to address the loss of positive aspects that keep people in a religion otherwise you’re just going to be yelling at a wall and not actually doing anything or putting people off by assuming everyone who holds any kind of religious belief or engages in religious rituals is some kind of brainwashed cultist.
I didn’t make any kind of argument though?
I remember watching an interview with a mushroom man, he posited that humans have receptors built in for magic mushrooms because humans used to have an organ that provided hallucinogenic euphoria. This allowed humans to survive in groups without killing eachother, then religion eventually evolved socially and replaced it. Now that we have technology and modern governments thats slowly replacing religion.
It was a neat idea anyways. Its also neat to think about how religions could be a form of evolution, even though they arent technically biological changes.
Have you ever done mushrooms? This theory makes no sense.
If you’re into that kind of speculation, you might enjoy “The Cosmic Serpent” by Jeremy Nearby.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I’d rather trip tbh
This is very offensive to me. I’m Eastern Orthodox, that’s not spaghetti that’s lo-mein with fish balls. Heathen degenerate.
I believe it’s impossible to prove the existence of two gods.
I’m a diagnostic.
I don’t drink tea.
I’m an atheaist
I hate definite articles, I’m an a-the-ist
God, my mother is going to cackle at that one
Nice, tell her we all said hi! She’ll know who you mean.
RAmen
Ramen.
Have you felt the touch of His noodly appendage?
I’m tall. So according to Scripture: Not so much … 😫
It’s not at all difficult to explain. “I don’t believe in gods.” Simple as that.
That’s atheism?
Yeah, I think it boils down to this.
“Do you believe in a god or gods?”
“Yes” - Theist
“No” - Atheist
“I don’t know.” - Agnostic
Of course, many people would admit they aren’t certain for yes/no, and so might qualify as an agnostic theist/atheist depending on how strict you are with confidence. Some agnostics will be more rigid and say the answer is inherently unknowable. Regardless, it still seems a lot simpler than having to explain a satirical religion you are pretending to believe in to someone.
You either believe in god(s) or you don’t. Orthogonally you might be sure of your beliefs or not.
Most self-described agnostics are agnostic atheists.
Jesus thank god, only one accurate comment in this thread on the difference between atheists and agnostics.
They are the answers to two different questions
So you’re saying that agnosticism is a spectrum of atheism? That belief must be active - if you don’t specifically believe in a god(s) then you’re atheist, and agnosticism describes the level to which you hold that conviction? Seems like a very narrow way of looking at it. What about those who explicitly believe we can’t know if there’s a god (s)?
I’m interested in the source of your latter assertion as well, I’m taking it to be anecdotal?
What about those who explicitly believe we can’t know if there’s a god (s)?
That’s strong agnosticism.
No. I’m saying it’s orthogonal, but that most self described agnostics are atheists. You can be agnostic and Christian, which, to a point, is even endorsed by the Catholic Church, but agnostic Christians usually just self label as Christian.
Exactly.
I’ve always thought of agnosticism as being “I don’t believe in Gods,” and atheism as being “Gods don’t exist.” It’s like the difference between saying “I don’t think that plan will work” vs “That plan won’t work.” One leaves room for you to be wrong, while the other doesn’t.
Agnostics are “I don’t know, probably not. It’s impossible to know.”.
Atheists are “I don’t think there’s a god, there’s no proof”.
Anti-theists are “there is definitely no god”, and they have just as much evidence as believers.
deleted by creator
Because I just discovered it on wikipedia I think is worth adding ‘Ignostic’ - the belief that frankly it’s pointless even discussing any of this unless you can first define a deity. Seems bloody sensible to me.
…who can’t define a deity?
Ignosticism sometimes want you to also define what “to believe” means.
Why? You can see in the comment you replied to.
When you are ignostic it is interesting that you can also be, agnostic and Christian by some definitions and antitheist by other definitions… A schrodinger christian.
My hot take: If most atheists would use the same definition for God as most Christians do, they would consider themselves as Christians.
And most christians would be considered atheists if they used common atheist definition.
There are also some subtle variations in agnosticism.
There’s the soft variety that says “there is no proof that convinces me either way but I won’t rule out that someone could come up with one”.
There’s the hard variety that says “I don’t think it’s possible to prove either way”.
There’s even a variety that says “it doesn’t matter whether (a) god exists or not, hence there’s no need for a proof”.
But yeah, the core of agnosticism is that you don’t believe the existence of (a) god has been conclusively proven or disproven and are unwilling to commit either way without that proof.
Seems like it’s gathered quite a wide definition but this is certainly how I’ve always understood it. If I was to ever start a cult I think it’d be based on militant agnostic fundamentalism.
Ah, interesting. Never heard the term “Anti-theist,” but that does fit the bill a bit better.
My understanding was that atheism is the belief that there is no god(s), whereas to be agnostic is the absence of belief one way or another, i.e unable to prove or disprove existence of god(s). With this interpretation it’s more scientifically rational (for whatever that’s worth) to be agnostic than atheist.
The importance of such a distinction doesn’t merit much fuss beyond freshman philosophy though since you get some atheists who are absolutely evil cunts and plenty of genuinely good people of almost all religions.
Atheism doesn’t make any positive claims. It doesn’t claim to know there is no god. That’s anti-theist.
Atheism makes the negative claim of: none of your god claims has sufficient evidence, therefore I don’t believe them.
Now, individual atheists themselves can say and do whatever. That’s on them.
Even easier to explain than Pastafarianism though.
Yeah but you’d be surprised how people would hate you more for believing in nothing than believing in a bowl of pasta… even if it’s a fake believe in pasta that symbolizes nothing.
Hate is hater’s problem, not mine
They have a way of making it your problem.
Or simply assume you didn’t suffer enough yet. Because everyone who strongly suffers will start praying, right?
Just because i don’t believe in gods, doesn’t mean i believe in nothing. That’s a common misconception that the religious like to promote.
There is a shade of meaning between “I don’t believe” and “I don’t know how a person/I could determine that they/I affirmatively believe.”
I personally would interpret the former as non religious and the latter as agnostic, but it probably differs from person to person. Especially because non religious is often used to describe people who do not practice a religion, but may well still believe in it (though that would be non practicing for me).
It’s not at all difficult to explain
But if we acknowledge that, how is OP gonna get away with posting this 2009-ass r/atheism meme?
Out of curiosity, when you say “all religion”, does that include the many atheistic religions?
Oh look, the old “aThEiSm Is A rElIgIoN” trope.
Seriously, you guys need some new material. If Jesus were real he’d be looking for new writers.
Dodged the question without even first processing it.
Ninja shit.
I never said atheism is a religion. There are many religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Satanism which don’t believe in god but are still considered religions.
I’m aware of how my original comment came across so I should probably specify that I myself do not believe in a supernatural god.
I myself do not believe in a supernatural god.
So do you lean more towards sacrificing still beating hearts to our father the Sun or are you more into hugging trees and dancing naked in the moonlight?
What?
You mean like Pastafarian?
Sort of. Pastafarianism is technically a religion, but it started as a satirical protest. I’m talking about religions which do not believe in a supernatural god.
Eastern religions like Buddhism?
Buddhism, Jainism, some forms of Taoism, Secular Humanism, Satanism etc.
Just out of curiosity, who is this question directed at?
The person who posted the meme.
And you expect them to answer questions about the philosophical beliefs of the artist?
It’s a philosophical meme. I’ll try not to assume people stand by what they post next time.
Good idea.
God I swear even here atheism is more like a cult. They can’t even help themselves from saying, “well you must not know what being agnostic is.” I absolutely appreciate you being agnostic & it is unfortunate that more people can’t accept that.
I mean is there a word for someone who accepts the possibility of a god but there’s absolutely no way it’s the Christian or any of the other established gods?
Do you have proof it’s not an established god? Do you have proof that any of the current representations are accurate or inaccurate to the original god being referenced? Saying it can’t be an established god is as much of a commitment of faith as saying it is a specific god.
Yeah, it’s called being agnostic. There is nothing wrong with it & I honestly think it makes more sense than claiming to know there is no God(s) or supernatural power. Heck, even Quantum Physics continually makes me consider the idea that we exist in infinite universes simultaneously, or that we could be 7 inception layers deep in some advanced computer simulation.
Personally, I say “there is no god”, because I also say “there is no pink space unicorn hiding behind Pluto”. I don’t know either for sure, but if a kid asks me and I start humming and hawing whether there might be pink space unicorns behind Pluto, then that sends entirely the wrong message.
So, the difference between agnosticism and atheism is pure semantics to me. I do not claim to know that there is no god. But I assume there is no god until proven otherwise.
