Um, actually
23d 15h ago by lemmy.world/u/The_Picard_Maneuver in microblogmemes
As an atheist, I don't go around bashing on others' beliefs - as long as they're respectful to others and don't use their beliefs to police others.
A grandma on her deathbed, trying to find comfort in her faith? Hell, I will sit with her and confirm that she's indeed about to see her dead husband and spend eternity with him. Because at that point, being kind is more important than being right or debating theology.
But, the moment you try to use your beliefs to dictate how others live (beyond basic morality, going beyond the golden rule), out comes the "fuck off with your imaginary sky daddy" argument. You are free to live your life by any doctrine you want, as long as it doesn't affect others negatively. You don't want to eat meat? Sure, go for it. You don't want to eat pork/beef/seafood? It's your body, your choice. You don't want to get an abortion or transition to a different gender or be in a gay relationship? Again, it's up to you. But the very second you try to tell others to live by your rules, you can fuck right off, and then fuck off some more just for good measure.
And it's not like I'm not open to debate. I guess at the end I'm more agnostic rather than atheist, in this aspect. I welcome theological debate. I'll gladly argue about it for hours as long as you're respectful. I've got a bunch of theist friends - Christians, Muslims, Hindu, a variety of pagan/wiccan witches, and so on - with whom we do sit down on occasion with a drink or a joint and debate various aspects of belief, religion (organised or personal), their effects and influences on society and vice versa. It can be a brilliant topic of discussion as long as everyone respects the others and listens to their side. After all, every single person has their own point of view formed by their upbringing, their life experiences, and so on, and these are equally important regardless if you agree with them or not. But it's equally important to understand that these debates aren't meant to convert anyone. They are there to convey a part of you you find important, so others can better understand you. Understanding why one turned away from, or turned to religion, and how that helped them as a person.
To summarise: religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one, it's okay to not have one. It's even okay to be proud of (not) having one. Hell, it's even okay to think yours is better than others'. What's not okay is pulling it out in public and trying to force it down others' throats, or try to legislate in the form of a dick measuring contest.
I agree that this is the best approach to it. Live and let live.
I'm an atheist as well, and I definitely went through that stereotypical antagonistic phase when I was much younger, and now I cringe about it. I've softened on religion a lot since then and no longer view it as a human failing that has only caused harm. I respect that others may have reached a different conclusion than me, and I recognize that religion has served as a vehicle for culture that has driven much of the societal progress and values that we take for granted today.
I was very antagonistic because I grew up an atheist in a conservative ultracatholic hell. Now I live in a chill place that used to also be conservative ultracatholic hell. I got to meet religious people that didn't sincerely believe that I deserve to be tortured forever for not believing in what they do, who aren't bigots, who believe in abortions, who hate rapist priests. When people aren't mad at you all the time, it's so much more peaceful to reciprocate.
It's easy to fall into antitheism when the only religious people around you are structurally supporting evil, it's hard when you see that people can actually have a positive relationship with their religion and community, even if they are incorrect about some metaphysical truth.
Don't feel cringey about personal growth, that's a badge of honor
fuck off with your imaginary sky daddy
Do one better, tell them that your sky daddy is bigger than theirs and could beat him in a fight, then pull out pamphlets on your chosen fake god and give them to them for a change.
Literally did it last week, couple Mormons came to sell me bullshit, I pulled out a couple pamphlets from The Church of the SubGenius and told them the good word of "Bob". Much more fun, and it's harder for them to dismiss than anti-theism outright because they're used to that but like nobody does this lmao.
Which Bob are we talking about here?
The only "Bob" that matters of course, the Saint of Sales and One True Slack Master himself, J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. "Bob" is the founder of The Church, in 1953 while working on a television set it shocked the living ghee out of him and through this he communicated with JHVH-1 (Jehovah as you may know him), he pretends to be a god but he told "Bob" the Truth, he's an evil alien from some corporate sin galaxy here to take our Slack! After this Revelation "Bob" founded The Church to help save the True SubGenii (that's me, and maybe you! Find out at www.subgenius.com or send $5 to "Bob" at P.O Box 807 Glen Rose TX 76043 and request the pamphlet) hiding amongst the humans and stop JHVH-1. To do this he sold the planet to the good aliens, the X-ists, who will come rupture all the ordained SubGenii into the PleasureSaucers come X-Day (July 5th 1998, which hasn't happened yet despite what The Conspiracy wants you to think. 2026, pfft yeah right, then where's my Saucer?).
It's true, scout's honor.
What the HELL do you think you're doing!?
(Also, here's Arise! because I love it)
So not one of the Bobs of Dennis E. Taylor?
Nah, none of them have the quotes.
And also like a penis, keep it away from children. It sickens me how much religion preys on children to indoctrinate them before they have the critical thinking skills to see through the grift.
Lmfao that summary. I have a very similar approach to life. It's blindingly apathetic, for the most part. I just don't care which way your gate swings, what, if any sky daddy you believe in etc. My only rule is simple: don't be a shitbag. That's it. That's all. Treat people like they're humans. If you are a shitbag, out comes the billy club.
You don't want to eat meat? Sure, go for it.
But the very second you try to tell others to live by your rules, you can fuck right off,
I agree with you, it's cruel to force others to live by your dietary rules. I'm personally vegan, and I'm completely fine with meat eaters as long as they don't force their dietary choices onto other people or animals.
Right? It's maddening to see that meat eaters can not see this incredibly obvious contradiction in their otherwise commendable live and let live mentality.
I guess at the end I'm more agnostic rather than atheist, in this aspect.
I don't like how agnostic and atheist have been used. Atheist means a lack of belief in a god. Anti-theist is the active belief there isn't one. Agnostic is someone who knows that they cannot know if there's a god. Agnostic atheist is someone who knows they can't know if there's a god and lacks the belief in one.
Agnostic is not the same claim as atheist or theist. It is a claim on the ability to know something, not on the beliefs that person holds. A gnostic atheist is the same as an Anti-theist. They think they can know there isn't a god. The inverse for a gnostic theist. You can also be an agnostic theist, who doesn't think it can be known, but they still believe.
Okay then let me rephrase my beliefs:
- I do not believe in any deity et al
- I do not dismiss the potential for a higher being to exist
- I will not believe in such an entity until undismissable, scientifically verifiable, direct proof is given
Yeah, that's agnostic atheist.
Sent you a DM, hmu :)
As an atheist, I never bring up my beliefs unless asked. My religious friends and relatives on social media spout their shit non-stop. If I did 1/10th of that they'd be up in arms.
This post just seems like a straw man to try and keep atheists invisible.
This post just seems like a straw man to
try and keep atheists invisible.farm engagement.
It doubles up on religious debate, and hating on Reddit.
Correct, plus if it's reddit it's possibly a bot created specifically to make that straw man real. Christians in particular have a persecution fetish, after all.
Eh I mean I was there 15 years ago when /r/atheism was a default subreddit (when default subreddits were a thing, nowadays I believe that's no longer the case). Some of the commenters/posters seemed like they'd be genuinely exhausting people in real life. Not a majority by any means, otherwise I would've unsubscribed fairly quickly.
They found Russian agents working through social media to widen rifts in the US electorate, specifically on the vaccine debate. They had agents playing both sides: pro-vax and anti-vax.
Who knows how many entities are doing this right now? On which topics? On which social networks?
So, yes, fake atheists being assholes, but also fake Christians being assholes. You are always being manipulated. There is never a time you are not being manipulated.
You are not immune to propaganda
I am not immune to propaganda
We are not immune to propaganda! ☭
☭
gold
Well then isn't it refreshing that a real human stole that reddit bot post who stole it from a human on twitter and gave it to us here on Lemmy, restoring it back to human-to-human sharing.
Annoying militant atheists are definitely rarer than annoying militant christians, but they do exist. Especially on reddit. One of the reasons I enjoy lemmy is that those people are rarer.
Fun side fact: I knew one of my two best friends for over a decade before finding out they were christian. They had been wearing the same cross necklace under their shirt that whole time. We just never talked about it because it didn’t come up and they aren’t preachy.
Don't worry. I got you covered. I whine about religion all the time and make sure to mention I'm an atheist. As you said, they're constantly pushing their thing down other people's throats. If they can't handle the comments, they should keep it to themselves. The same way they want gay people to keep it to themselves.
yeah this is the part that slays me. "vocal atheists are so annoying"
asshole, how many times have atheists knocked on your door?
how many atheists did you encounter on your way to your pap smear at planned parenthood?
fucking hypocrites, child rapists and child rape accomplices.
This was me at my step-nephew's funeral after he killed himself.
The whole service they were talking about him being in heaven. According to their own religious text he would go straight to hell. Luckily I was able to keep my mouth shut.
my wife's mom's funeral the priest kept going on about this passage where it described how thick the walls were in heaven. "Imagine Becky looking at those walls!"
ok my dude, you're not really selling this to me
At my grandpa's funeral the bishop talked about how its a real bummer that my grandpa wouldn't be paying tithe anymore.
Heaven is ... material?
Does the Bible actually say this anywhere? I know this is a Catholic interpretation, and probably most other Christian religions.
Hell isn't really in the Bible. Iirc most interpretations of hell come from revelations where the anti-Christ and the beast (along with all the wicked and unsaved) are thrown into the Lake of fire on judgement day by Christ. That's it. There isn't anything about different circles of hell, or eternal damnation (there's a lot of debate about if the Lake of fire is instant annihilation, temporary torment to cleanse the soul, or permanent eternal torment)
Afaik it was largely created through some wild interpretations of the church in order to sell indulgences (get out of sin free cards) which funnily enough is how Gutenberg was allowed to keep printing. His new printing press was amazing at mass producing indulgences which were handwritten and quite lengthy. Now the church had a way to produce their "sin for free" tokens in bulk. If it weren't for that Gutenberg might have been shut down for cutting in on the church's monopoly on books.
Dante's inferno also had a massive influence on the Christian interpretation of hell. Afaik it was also largely made up or "artistic license" was used to make hell into what it is in the book.
Edit: added clarity
only people i've seen torment the dying at their beside is the christians.
always the same spiel.. repent while you can, save your soul from eternal damnation. if you don't repent you'll spend all eternity in fire and torture, etc etc etc.
Which isn't even in the bible afaiu?
Since when have Christians, especially the loud ones, based their beliefs on a book they've never read?
But Jesus does threaten hell for the mistreatment of the poor, the imprisoned, the hungry, and foreigners.
religious people are way worse, who cares
Absolutely, You can be actively in the process of dying and they will be bible thumping your chest.
I don't go door to door telling people they should be atheist but at least once a year someone knocks on my door to talk to me about Christ.
Some of them actually believe that if they can get you to say the magic words, you'll go to heaven instead of hell.
If I thought I could prevent someone from eternal pain and suffering, and instead have them go to a place where the creator of everything, including... uh... hell...
OK, never mind.
Isn't jesus torturing you forever too?
My version of jesus only tortures the epstein class
I wouldn't mind if there was a god who created a hell, if hell is the special place reserved for fascists, human traffickers, and greedy billionaires who destroy the planet.
People act like this god guy is such a dick for creating a hell. As if they really want to share an afterlife with everyone who ever lived.
Somehow the paradox of intolerance dovetails into this, but I'm too lazy to explain how.
I would mind: if you're all-powerful then why create fascists, human traffickers, greedy billionaires, and the majority of people who are making the biosphere uninhabitable for most genera? And why punish them with hell, when you created them that way? That's just sadistic.
I understand wanting a hell for bad people, because most people do extremely evil things:
- voting to be ruled by openly greedy, sociopathic liars (with only about 1-4% of voters choose ethical candidates);
- giving money to factory farmers and fishermen;
- contributing to human overpopulation;
- etc.;
but I still prefer honesty and saying there's absolutely no evidence that a biblical hell is real.
Oh come on, that is so easily answered by the concept of free will. An all-powerful god doesn't create a universe populated by sentient beings just to control everything that any of them do. That's just silly.
Human beings are endowed with free will, and given a choice: use it for good or evil. You can try to be morally neutral, but ultimately you're either serving yourself or others. It's possible to balance doing both, but that means neither is to the exclusion of the other and therefore still counts as doing good.
It's so lazy to just ask "Why did god let people do evil things in the first place." Do you really expect me to believe the concept of free will has never crossed your mind when asking this question?
And I never said that a biblical hell is real, I was just following along with the hypotheticals of the previous comments.
Do you really expect me to believe the concept of free will has never crossed your mind when asking this question?
Free will is so obviously an illusion to me (since no-one in recorded history has ever been able to magic their way around causality) that I sometimes forget that most people, especially religious people, think they have free will. I should have stated that.
If free will is real for people tho, then God isn't all-knowing or all-powerful, which means it's not God - unless you use a definition of God that extremely few people in the West or Middle-East hold.
Free will isn't about magic or causality. Framing it like that just shows you misunderstand the concept of free will.
We're bound by circumstances and possibility, yes. That doesn't contradict free will, because free will is about self-determination: being able to choose a course of action from among the possibilities, rather than being compelled one way or the other by some extrinsic force such as fate.
For example, say you go to a restaurant. They give you the menu. You get to choose anything on the menu, and maybe even make a special request, and no one is compelling you to choose one thing or another.
They might say "No, we can't do that" when you ask if they can substitute hush puppies for a side. That's not a contravention of your free will, they might just not have hush puppies.
Just because the menu doesn't include everything in the universe doesn't mean you don't have free will when choosing an option.
Also, free will doesn't contradict god being omniscient or omnipotent. I don't know why you keep implying that it does, but you haven't presented any rationale for why we should suppose that.
This doesn't mean I believe in a god, by the way. I'm just telling you that your logic about free will and omnipotence doesn't add up.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Those things might all influence the choice you make on the menu, but none of them forces you to choose anything. You're still the one making the choice. The things you've mentioned are about the web of conditionality, not determinism.
And your second to last paragraph assumes predestination, which not all christian denominations believe. So that argument only applies to presbyterians and other calvinists. And anyone who buys the prosperity gospel scam.
And which part of you is the “you” making that final choice? Which part evaluates all of the conditions to make the decision, the part that isn’t determined by your hormones and brain chemistry at the time?
Surely you’re not going to tell me it’s the soul, unless you have evidence that it exists at all.
You're asking questions that neuroscientists don't even have the answers to. But if all of that was predetermined by your biology, then humans would be nothing more than computers.
So if that's the case, then you must be the type to believe that LLMs can evolve into AGI. After all, these stupid soulless meat computers in our skulls were able to develop emergent consciousness, or at least a very good imitation of it, so good in fact that it even fools us into believing that we're conscious and have free will, when actually we're just stupid soulless meat computers.
Eh?
No idea how you got to the LLM conclusion, as they operate on completely different principles.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special, because humans would be “nothing more” than computers. Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
Doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t have free will though. Although I’m almost certain that if the abrahamic god exists, we definitely do not.
Because you're saying that humans are biological computers. That's the same underlying belief that leads some people to think that LLMs can grow into AGI. "Well human brains are just really complex computers with emergent intelligence, so digital computers should be able to do the same!" It's a theory I disagree with. I'm merely pointing out that it's where your line of reasoning leads.
Sounds to me like your argument now is that you wouldn’t feel special
It's not about feeling special. Humans are more than just biological computers.
Turns out actually that humans, and every other organism that we know of, are just biological robots built by our genetic material for the purposes of its safety and propagation.
That's a theory, without enough evidence to confirm. Framing it as "turns out actually that" ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it's some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
Yeah, some people (who don't understand how LLMs work) think that LLMs can grow into AGI. The fact is that neurobiology is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than any AI we have. Even if we did try to model a new AI after biological neurons, I still don't think it would be a good solution for AGI, since it will probably get things wrong as often as a human would. But LLMs are just fundamentally not going to get us to AGI, in the same way that building a taller ladder will never get us to the moon.
But that's just because LLMs lack the complexity required to exhibit emergent behavior (beyond what it was specifically designed to do), and even if it did, or we found some other framework that could lead to AGI, I'm not sure we'd ever have the compute to facilitate such emergence.
But that also doesn't mean that emergent intelligence cannot exist. So no, I disagree that that is where my reasoning leads.
Humans are more than just biological computers
I never said anything about computers, you did. I'm just talking about the biochemical substrate from which our bodies work. I'm very curious, though, about what you mean by "more than biological computers". I'm going to assume it's consciousness, awareness, whatever. Is it some part of us that doesn't have some roots in our biochemistry?
I'd like to know which part of us you think that mind-altering drugs act on. Alcohol inhibits activity in the frontal lobe, and our decision-making capability is diminished as a result. Psilocybin, LSD, and other hallucinogens affect how we perceive the world. SSRIs and other antidepressants generally tend to improve mood. Xanax alleviates anxiety. Anesthetics cause a loss of consciousness (as do a lot of things).
I agree that humans are more than the "biological robots" I mentioned, but I am not sure we agree on why. I would say it's because of emergent complexity, but if you say it is something else, then I'd like to know how you explain the effects of the drugs I listed (majority of which we know the biochemical mechanism) on human cognition. Or how we can detect changes in brain activity for different scenarios or neurodegenerative disease in fMRI.
That’s a theory, without enough evidence to confirm
Yes, it is a theory, but it has mountains of evidence behind it. It's not "confirmed reality" but it matches and explains all of the data we have. It's the theory of evolution by natural selection. The only thing that matters is the gene. Everything else is to help the gene's existence persist. You eat energy-rich foods, that helps your survival, and your genes make sure you feel good for it. You make friends, that's forming a social bond, helping your survival, and your mental health improves. You have sex, that's propagating the gene, and so the gene makes sure your body is organized in a way that makes it feel good.
Framing it as “turns out actually that” ignores the facts. Presenting a hypothesis as if it’s some confirmed reality is anti-scientific.
And saying "humans are more than just biological computers" isn't presenting a hypothesis as confirmed reality?
If humans have free will then god is not omnipresent omnipotent, we're all powerful.
Evil exists in the world because God allows it or because he's powerless to stop it.
Even if God is not omnipresent omnipotent and does not know everything you will do, Then he is still making creatures to which he will torture for all eternity if they do not align with him. The most morally just thing at all would be to create nothing or at least create things that are not bound to heaven or hell.
False, endowment of freewill doesn't logically contradict omnipotence. And your statement "we're all powerful" is a giant leap. Free will is not omnipotence.
Evil exists in the world because God allows it or because he's powerless to stop it.
(Assuming we're going with theistic explanations for the purposes of argument), Evil exists because humans are endowed with free will, meaning god gives humans a choice of how to behave. Anything less would make us mindless automatons/slaves, which would arguably be evil.
Then he is still making creatures to which he will torture for all eternity if they do not align with him.
Assuming an omnibenevolent god, hell would be a place for genocidiers and fascists and other people who caused untold suffering for others, who would then be tortured for eternity by their own degeneracy because when you remove the pleasures of the flesh from the equation, there's nothing left to distract one from one's own inner life.
multiple protestants have theological holes in their boats
hell is not eternal suffering its just the state of nonexistence as you will be in hell as you were without God aka nonexistent, God made you.
And you cant have torture and suffering without life, so you cant have eternal torture and suffering if you do not have eternal life, and if you have eternal life, you aint going to hell.
Tell them they can stop, go home, and enjoy time with the fam. I found Christ, and I stopped the problem.
Ok, take it out on them
Idk i think atheism is just as presumptuous and asinine as theism.
Atheists don't tend to fall down the nationalism - fascism hole quite as frequently, but they can be just as annoying.
I just don't know what's wrong with admitting we don't know. We can't perceive everything and there is still too much mystery for me to subscribe to anything. That being said, I do not use the promise of an afterlife to live well, I justify that by making happiness my goal, I just can't say definitively there is nothing going on beyond what we know, spiritually speaking. I don't think any religion has gotten it right because how could they if we can't perceive everything?
The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, and "we don't know" is that in a nutshell. Gnostic atheists who "know" there is no god are rather rare but very loud.
gnostic or agnostic, atheists are just not convinced. Like I dont believe you, that you have a unicorn at home. If I am gnostic or agnostic about that matter isnt really too important to anyone.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable. So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I'd argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic?
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites!
Edit: they certainly look like they're opposites, but just like deontology and ontology aren't opposites, these two words are just awkwardly related. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticismwhich is not just "believing in a god". I'd say a proper antonym for atheism is theism/deism.
"I know" and "I don't know" aren't opposites?
They are of course, but that's not the meaning I attach to those words.
respectfully, your edit made it even more clear that you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of the terms in this case. agnostic / gnostic atheism needent necessarily have anything to do with gnosticism as a general term.
True enough, but even still I don't see that "gnostic atheism" is obviously the opposite of "agnostic atheism". In any case it's not what I claimed. The terminology is confusing and I was hoping to be helpful, although I see now I was far too glib.
Offtopic: What in gods name is that wiki? https://hmolpedia.com/page/Main_PageI understand almost every word but dont get the combination of them at all. Am I crazy?
No, no you aren't. I'm worried about the creator of the site, though. Y I K E S
(ETA: Y'all, I think we're being trolled.)
True enough, but even still I don’t see that “gnostic atheism” is obviously the opposite of “agnostic atheism”.
They aren't, but that wasn't the claim. Here's what you said:
Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites!
The article you linked explains how they're opposites. Gnostic and agnostic are opposites, just like theism and atheism are opposites.
right, one type of atheism and another type of atheism arent "opposites" and no one said they were.
the prefix in question and how it functions in this case are indeed opposites. one is a position of certainty about the topic, and one is a position of a lack of that certainty.
in this context, i think they are. aka certainty / uncertainty
I take your point. For the record if you do claim that gnosticism and atheism are indeed opposites, them isn't "gnostic atheism" an oxymoron?
no no ... its like this ... within the context of atheism the prefixes gnostic and agnostic refer to the following term "atheism".
atheist refers to belief gnostic / agnostic refers to certainty
no one claimed anything about gnosticism at all, let alone that its the opposite of atheism. thats doubly wrong. also, iirc you are the one who introduced opposites into this conversation. i do agree the whole situation is semantically confusing. :)
Oh, I see. "Gnostic" has more than one meaning. It can mean "A believer in Gnosticism", but it can also mean "Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge." I'm using the American Heritage Dictionary, but you can find similar definitions in other dictionaries.
In this case, I'm sure that most people can figure out that a gnostic atheist isn't an atheist who believes in Gnosticism.
Totally right. Worse again though, there is a lesser known term "gnostic atheist", but it doesn't quite mean "a spiritual believer in the absence of a god", nor any other straightforward guess.
because to consider yourself a "gnostic atheist" you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing. You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that's it's exceedingly unlikely.
deleted comment -
i had misread this part here "To be a gnostic atheist" and attempted to politely correct what i misread as "agnostic atheist" my bad. good comment!
I figured this was the case. The loud ones tend to set the stage, unfortunately. I'd personally just consider myself to be fully agnostic, but I'm sure I share a significant base of beliefs with most agnostic atheists.
I say there isn't a god the same way I say the sun will rise tomorrow and the universe won't blink out of existence. In truth, nothing is certain or absolutely knowable; there's always the unknown unknowns and axioms which are untestable. But I have no reason to believe that lawn gnomes come alive when they're not being watched; just because I can't be absolutely certain to exactly 100% certainty doesn't mean I also can't confidently state that claim's full of shit.
Right? There is some hubris is this absolute certainty without room for doubt. Thats just not scientific to me, either.
if enough people started saying so, would you think theres a chance that shoelaces are sentient even though theres no evidence to support that and all reasonable evidence supports the opposite conclusion? ofc not, so why should i entertain the idea of gods. hmu when you have some evidence.
You are walking, talking evidence of militant atheists being asinine.
I will not be elaborating.
thats not kind
I don't know you and I have no obligation to be kind to strangers. You'll live, I'm sure.
just dropping an ad hominem and peacing is a poor way to engage in my opinion. be well.
I'll give that, I shouldn't have called you asinine. I will rephrase.
Your behaviour is asinine -- and not making me any less annoyed at militant atheists.
im just enjoying lemmy
if you say "religious" you have no valuable opinion on Christianity
I see more insufferable atheists than insufferable religious people on Lemmy at least.
on lemmy
Yeah duh... Its a space made by and largely populated by computer nerds
Oh intelligent and educated people have less stupid beliefs without evidence to back them up on average? Huh.
Oh, and I'm supposed to respect magical thinking of ignorantscand cowards as if it were equal to science? Huh.
Try going outside anywhere in the US
That's because here, we're winning.
Probably just selection bias. Which group of annoying people you run into more often is just a reflection of the spaces you hang out (through choice or otherwise)
Exactly, which is (sorta) my point. If this thread (and most atheist-dominated online threads I've seen) is any indication, atheists think they're per capita less insufferable than their least favorite brand of religious people when they just express their insufferability indifferently.
Just because someone uses Linux doesn't make them an atheist
Okay I'm an atheist and I use Linux but
go vegan for a triple
templeos
if only
Religious people and vegans are exactly the same. They both claim absolute nonsense to be undeniable truth and are smug about everything they can't prove.
The fuck? This comment is so out of left field holy shit 🤣
Looks like you took a play out of your own book when you lumped vegans in there.
Prove me wrong. The loud ones are making themselves the representatives of the cult and exactly like any other cult, constantly proselytizing like street preachers. The pushiness poisons the movement, even if it wasn't full of shit. Live your little life of self denial but shut the fuck up about it.
What would it take to prove you wrong? Now I'm just curious.
You can't at this point. Keep yelling at the wall if you enjoy it though.
They both claim absolute nonsense to be undeniable truth and are smug about everything they can't prove
They're yelling at a wall? My friend, nobody here is talking about vegans but you lol
vegans are right tho
they say a lot of things. not all of it is right.
"Animals feel pain and causing pain without having to is bad"
NONSENSE!11!!
Onmivores gotta omnom.
Not to mention the environment...
This is truly the behavior to expect from theists. You're lying there waiting for death and some wannabe preacher tells you that it's not too late to join their cult
I was at a funeral where the preacher was doing that! "If she were here now, she would tell you to make sure that you get your life right with Jesus." Um, no, she fucking wouldn't! Her fiance was sitting in front of me, and I thought I could see smoke coming out of his ears.
It was her family's funeral, though, and apparently they were Christians.
What, that she says she gets to go be with g-pa? Let her have her moment. OP is making this situation way more complicated than it needs to be.
this gives "I talked to a JW once" energy
Nah I grew up in fundamentalist circles
dam, rough.
Protestant indoctrination is why most people leave Christianity. Hope you find Christ, Frater
I hope you wise up and find Ganesh someday
Remover of obstacles, patron of arts and sciences, lord of letters and learning, and chicks dig a prehensile nose. There's definitely worse choices if you're shopping for deities.
Protestant indoctrination
apparently you're not disgusted by the long history of child rape in the catholic church? or do you actively help the coverup?
Protestants lolol
Fucking gross, dude.
Let's be honest: Going "(Your) God isn't real" when someone tells you a "God bless you" is straight disrespectful. It's their way of wishing you good things.
I have an helenist friend whom I'd reply "Let's hope for it" if they said "hope the Gods are with us on this". Am I a Helenist? No.
I tell my dad a "You too!" when he says "may God protect you on your way!". Am I a Christian? Nope!
But is this their way of wishing someone a good day/good luck? Yes. The intention is what counts, after all.
Ah fuck that.
I don't think that many atheist would display this religious behavior, because this is the shit that religious types do all the fucking time
This meme is basically "every accusation is a confession"
Well, I do see tons of atheists do it. If your reality is different than mine, this is not my problem. I talked about mine, you stay on yours.
Yeah, speaking as a pagan, literally every stripe of religious people has annoying as shit people. Often they're people who feel insecure in their beliefs whether because they're new to them or because they feel those beliefs are under attack.
Like yeah, I've met those annoying atheists as well as atheists who I only knew were such because it came up. Several of my childhood friends went from the former to the latter.
I will say though, atheists don't try to make their religious beliefs legally mandatory, so I'll take some annoyance over that.
You've seen tons of atheists be douche canoes to their dying grandmothers? You have an impressively large but close knit circle of inconsiderate people.
Yeah, people do tend to be inconsiderable around me. Not only to grandmothers, but to relatives who say a mere "God bless you".
Yea this totally happens in real life. Deeeeefinitely not a strawman you made up to feel better about yourself.
Sir, this is a shitpost community
Sir, this is a shitpost
which is in a shitpost community
What is it with people these days that atheism is suddenly considered a bad thing?
Is it better to live with a psychosis, believing that you have a persona relationship with a sky creature that also talks back to you and helps specially you?
And no, most atheists aren't the type of asshole who would start jeering against a grandmother who just wants to be with her dead husband again.
I feel like atheism has always been considered a bad thing? It's more widely accepted now than it ever has been.
I totally agree it is the more logical belief, but, religious types not liking non-believers is nothing new
There's so many religious influence types these days that spend the entire time hating on atheists. They put out content like "ONE question that THE GODLESS™ CAN'T answer" and it's always something like "if humans evolved from apes, why are they still apes around" or something equally dumb.
It's always the type that sees science as the enemy. As if it's a competition.
Yeah but again, is that anything new? From my observations it isn't
What is it with people these days that atheism is suddenly considered a bad thing?
People who need the existential fear of eternal damnation to keep from raping, assaulting, etc etc cant stand the idea of there being people who exist who don't need an existential threat to just be decent people.
What do you think is more likely, religious people disliking you for your atheism or because you literally call them psychotic?
I think the edgy and outspoken atheist Redditor archetype has had a negative effect on people's view of atheists in general.
I don't totally disagree with that view and I do enjoy memes like this one
Also because atheists are a lot like vegans. How do you know if someone's a vegan? You probably have to be told, because you aren't paying that much attention to what other people are eating.
A lot of religious people only notice atheists when they're being annoying. If you're a Christian who's not annoying about it, it's not like you're asking people to do stuff when a Christian would be busy, you're more likely to default to assuming they just go to a different church.
There's also people who take being told when it's relevant as a pushy annoyance
This and phrases like 'my brother in christ' are pushed heavily in memes as subversive religious programming.
I don't think this paints all of atheism as a bad thing, just satirizes militant atheists who struggle with the fact that others can peacefully hold beliefs that are incompatible with their own. Reddit's full of them, and they're the equivalent of the evangelizing Christian that jumps on the "you need Jesus" spiel at the first whiff of non-Christian views.
In my (atheist) opinion, the two are equally obnoxious.
What is it with people these days that atheism is suddenly considered a bad thing?
Sir, this is just a joke.
This post is like a litmus test for separating pretentious reddit atheists from people who can actually take a joke, bravo
I hate organized religion with a passion. You bet your ass I was "catholic" when my grandfather passed and I was helping my grandmother with the funeral though. Im an atheist, not an asshole. I'm sure if their imaginary friend actually exists they can forgive me for pretending to believe to console my grieving grandmother
All I know is i've never had an athiest knock on my door too damned early on a Saturday morning to tell desperatly try to get me to believe in their particular lack of belief.
In either case, she’s not going to be disappointed
I just love so much that some atheist(s) on reddit upset the fucking god botherers so much that this has become a drum they beat weekly after decades.
sure bud, try to brand it as 'oh those mean / inconsiderate atheists' - sure thing child rapists, sure.
edit: oh no someone upset the child rapists, gee whiz
I mean, I'm an atheist myself but the type of person they're memeing here definitely does exist. Pretty much only confined to Reddit though. In my experience there are far more cringe theists in most other online spaces.
it's also funny to me how many responses these threads get saying
"well I'm an atheist but...."
like, ok, good for you. And hey, I genuinely believe almost 3-5 % of these responses lol
Believe it or not, the majority of atheists don't enjoy being annoying as fuck
yup. we never knock on people's doors trying to convert them.
We don't even threaten them with eternal torment if they don't!
yeah we're leaving all kinds of tools on the table. the cult of atheism is never gonna build itself this way lol
You think I'm lying about being an atheist? Pretty sure that would be against some rule in the bible lmao.
lying or just trying to be a pick-me, I don't care, I'm not your psychologist. There's always people like you who show up and castigate their 'fellow atheists' for being annoying, but ignore the enormous harm - and huge annoyances the god botherers inflict upon society writ large.
so sure, maybe you're being truthful, I don't give a fuck, it's still silly.
I don't know how you read my first comment and thought I was ignoring the damage theists do. I very explicitly stated that there are more cringe theists than atheists.
I don't care pickme, I don't believe you. "I'm an atheist but..." I don't need allies like this. Go shit someplace else.
You are being very aggressive lol. I'm not being a pickme, I couldn't give less fucks what religious people think of me. I actively dislike religious people, and agree with you that religion is the root of a good amount of the evil in the world.
All I said was that annoying atheists do exist (I know, I was one of them).
If you won't allow allies to lightly push back on your ideas then you'll find yourself without many allies.
Have a great day anyway man.
You are being very aggressive lol.
you're investing way more into this than is actually there.
I couldn’t give less fucks what religious people think of me.
and yet, you feel the need to attack a wide, diverse range of people based on your reddit interactions.
I don't feel like you're my ally, regardless of what you assume, and allies that attack their own aren't the allies I want to work with.
Have the day you deserve.
I did not attack a wide, diverse range of people. I attacked a small subset that exists almost exclusively on Reddit.
Would it be worth me saying that I find some atheists annoying, but that I find far, far more theists annoying? I find some people in every group annoying. That doesn't mean I find everyone in those groups annoying. It also doesn't mean that I'm not an ally for those groups. I will fight to the death for gay rights but if a gay person is being annoying they're still being annoying.
It's fine, you don't think atheists can be annoying. Or you think admitting that they can is counterproductive? That's also fine. Obviously I disagree, but I just don't understand your hostility.
I'm having a great day so far, thanks!
It’s fine, you don’t think atheists can be annoying.
I never said this. and if you're to be taken for you word, it pretty much seals the deal - I find you incredibly annoying. pedantic. facile. tiresome and disappointing.
doesn’t mean that I’m not an ally for those groups. I will fight to the death for gay rights but if a gay person is being annoying they’re still being annoying.
I'm glad you're all those things, but instead of standing up for those things, you decided to punch down. reddit (before the diaspora) was a cross-section of society, of course there will be annoying individuals of all stripes in each population, the question is, do you focus on that tiny minority, or the xtians who invade your privacy, judge your values, ignore their own scripture while raping and murdering for their skycake?
you made a choice at some point that this would become your personality - "I'm an atheist but...." - and misread my disgust for that reaction as 'being hostile to you.'
I didn't knock on your door to convert you to the idea that all atheists are great, but if you pipe up in threads with "I'm an atheist but..." I hope I'm there to laugh at what a sad choice it is every fucking time.
I feel like Reddit atheists are far too commonly given the spotlight, and intentionally so by theocratic fascists.
There are countless genuinely terrible things about organized religion and its role and influence in society. This conversation absolutely needs to be had. Nobody serious is going to grieving or dying people to shit on their coping skills using religion.
Well, the US certainly needs to have a discussion about organized Christianity. That's the only religion I ever see getting up in my business.
Fact: More Americans have been killed in the name of Christ than Allah.
A real reddit atheist would never be this well dressed. Still, it’s a great pic!
It's from adam ruins everything https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/64537-adam-ruins-everything
I know. I’m just being a dumbass.
It's very on brand for this post. Literally the energy he was going for.
This is Adam Conover slander.
Also, "Um, Actually" is a different College Humor/Dropout show.
Um, actually, Adam Connover has appeared on Um, Actually multiple times
This is me when a mainline christian says there's another angel in heaven. Umm, ackchyually... Angels are non-corporeal creatures, having spirit but not bodies, and humans are corporeal creatures having both spirit and body. A human becoming an angel (a completely different species) is akin to a human becoming a lizard, or vice versa.
Thank you for this gem
You're very welcome. There are a few gems that appeal to a general audience but many videos reflect the author's membership as a Missouri Synod Lutheran.
There's little kindness in breaking the grand comforting delusion of a dying delusional mind.
Just let them go in peace, to do otherwise would be needlessly cruel.
Or, maybe they deserve that cruelty: I don't have every relationship between every theist and atheist.
Just be aware that it is cruelty.
Some may deserve that, some may not.
Or you could just not be there.
That's all between you and... well, you.
Now that that's done and dusted, may we return to discussing the affairs of the living?
The cruelties repeatedly and incessantly enacted upon some category of them, by one particular group or another, because they don't share some particular principle or value in the way they live their lives?
The cruelties that are themselves mandatory ritual elements of those particular group's worldviews?
Yeah... as much as I hate my so-called mother, I think it would be needlessly cruel to do that to her... have enough empathy/sympathy to not do it.
Specially because I believe, while there might not be a beyond, there might be a "something" where consciousness is stuck in its last moments... and I wouldn't want even her to be stuck with the dread of dying, or the hopelessness of being hated in the deathbed, but hopefully her brain creating the image of "heaven"... a better place where she is happy, and not the unhappy bad person she ended up being...
There is a fair amount of evidence that the brain indeed does produce a very powerful hallucination in some people, as they pass.
Near death experiences... do often result in a kind of passage through or into a tunnel of blinding white experience.
Many people who do die in the sense of their heart stopping, but not permanent brain death, or very nearly die... many other kinds of vivid hallucinations of people in their lives or who knows what, or out of body experiences, etc...
While I don't think there is a beyond, there do seem to be genuine, extremely vivid last moments.
No explicit need to turn those into ... well I guess literally the worst trip of that person's life.
I remain convinced that these end of life hallucinations are the best frame for thinking about heaven and hell, rather than quasi-material spaces like they're often discussed.
As with the rest of our lives... a very vivid, somewhat standardized and agreed upon hallucination.
We are dreaming sacks of meat.
But that can be miraculous and amazing, if you let it be.
Atheist?
We call ourselves antitheist.
(Yes, I'll talk about the ills of religion and why it should be abolished. No, I'm not doing it at grandmas deathbed.)
There isn't anything wrong with having a community of people who share your beliefs and values and holding ceremonies and celebrations with them. The problem is when you try to force your religion on everybody else.
The problem is when you try to force your religion on everybody else.
Which religion does by existing. Everyone gets to vote. And as long a religions exist, some will do so based on things that are not real.
Additionally, respecting different ways of life, and being religious, are mutually exclusive concepts.
Someone that can genuinely think the way I live my life leads to eternal damnation, and also respect my right to choose, is not a good person. To merely treat others decently, the religious must reconcile internal moral beliefs in ways no-one should have to.
Non-secular thinking is not compatible with a secular utopia on earth. And I'm not talking about horoscopes. But religion, which by definition, is a set of rules for how society should work and how people should live. Often applied on the pain of death, or worse.
Pushing those rules on non-conformers is a intrinsic systemic component. Religion without it is not religion. It's just a nice idea, which subscribers get to hold dear while somehow accepting that anyone who doesn't must inevitably rot in hell, and they have to be ok with that.
So you've made up a very narrow and arbitrary definition of "religion" which sounds very much like evangelical Christianity.
All religions, consist of rules for how things should be.
That is not compatible with live and let live. That I reference the worst of them does not make the lesser ones innocent. Just lesser. Half bad is still bad. So is a quarter. Or any fraction.
Religion is informal law, which unlike actual law, is not up for a vote. And believers do get to vote, which can make their laws, our laws.
Trusting them to "live and let live" which in their frame of reference might doom others to some purgatory or other, isn't as valid an option as you make out. And I don't think anyone should have to make that internal moral compromise.
I don't subscribe to the idea that people shouldn't try to change how others live.
When does saving someone from drowning, become trying to force them to live like you do? Meddling for someone's own good, is not a bad thing.
Advocating for bicycle helmets is good. Why isn't saving people from hell?
The difference, is whether you meddle based on something that is real.
Some people do not believe helmets do anything. Should we not try to save them anyway?
Religions introduce a bunch of bullshit that has made saving people from themselves a shameful thing to attempt, just so that we can all semi-functionally co-exist.
The opening to that death episode of Adam Ruins Everything was insanely good.
"Actually, he didn't help build Roko's Basilisk so he's in hell now"
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
I love how some lemmings are so rabidly hateful of reddit that just seeing the word "reddit" in a screenshot of a twitter post triggers this kind of comment, like an involuntary reflex
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
Very few people trying to un-convert you on your deathbed, while the plenty of people trying to convert you to a religion... because in many cases, that's literally their belief that you can be "saved."
But arguing with a straw man meme is kinda pointless- especially on Lemmy, where most of you already know that, lol.
This dude's hair makes me irrationally angry lol
As a guy who can’t even pull off the Jean Luc Picard look, and has to shave his head, I applaud everybody who still has their hair; especially the ones with outlandish hairstyles.
I’m with you, though I would bet Ruby Rod is in a wig. Maybe that means you could pull that one off.
That said, the broccoli cut that’s popular with the kids right now is stupid as hell and I will die on this hill.
I've watched couple of his videos and I found his voice to be irritating af. Don't know why.
Because of the way it sounds? It doesn't bother me, but I can totally understand why it might bother somebody else. It's quite distinctive.
If you mean Adam Ruins Everything, then him talking all smug about everything is kind of the point.
Nah. His podcast. Watched episodes with Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow.
But, it's the perfect topper to an amazingly punchable face!
Hell Yeaaah!! On my Reddit atheist daily planner I have this scheduled for 2 pm
Plot twist: Grandma is also atheist and we are both happy that wherever she is headed is the same place as grandpa and everyone else, the eternal nothingness from which we came.
Yeah, achieving the same state as them is a pretty low bar to claim.
Girl, what? Achievement is in the eye of the achiever. If all you see is emptiness, then emptiness you will see.
Every accusation is a confession with the religious.
This too
The sort of atheist this meme addresses treats atheism like a religion.
I've talked with missionaries before, but never atheist ones.
Ironically, reading religious texts and critically thinking about them are the best way to convert someone from a religion to atheism.
Similar but reversed situation for me. My grandmother tried to guilt trip me into becoming Christian on her death bed by saying she wanted my soul to make it to heaven with her (I guess kudos to her for not saying the "instead of in hell where it's going now" part out loud).
Well yeah, but she won't care then either.
Why is that a picture of a real man, and not a man made of straw?
Nah, we aren't that cruel. We usually lie to comfort those who suffer from dementia.
One of my favorite takes on heaven as a concept actually comes from Frieren. She's talking to her priest friend about the afterlife, more or less says she doesn't believe or doesn't care maybe, and instead of trying to convince her, he just says "but isn't it more convenient?"
I am a through and through athiest and I always will be, but I do agree: it is more convenient. It's nice to think about even if you don't really believe it's true.
A similar idea: you experience a "second death" the last time someone remembers your name. I don't think that I'm achieving anything real by remembering my grandfather's, but it's nice to think that I've been keeping him alive in some small way. It's simply more convenient.
Absolutely not. If she still thinks that at 93, we know it's already a lost cause.
I love how this meme could be interpreted as "I'm glad to be burried next to my husband"
Reddit atheists were like the gamergate of secularism.
And its like 'grandma even if I'm wrong and you're right, you know that's never gonna happen. Grandpa was a good person.'
My grandmother told me she was ready to go to heaven and I told her I loved her.
Fuck off c-----ian.
Facts. Like just last week I had some Northern Unorthodox Atheists ringing my doorbell trying to tell me the good news about their "no god" or something, idk I wasn't really listening.
Anyway, all I had to do was start speaking Latin backwards and crawl on the ceiling to get them to leave.
Idk... that sounds pretty harsh and cruel. While I (currently) believe there might not be a beyond, there might be a “something” where consciousness is stuck in its last moments… if someone already has an idea of it, and they are peaceful, I won't change their mind... I'll just be there for them, comfort them, let their brain create the image of that happy place so they can live "stuck" in hapiness during their last moments...
It's pretty much the best I can hope for myself, too... convince myself that there will be something beyond just so my dying brain creates such image for me to "live" in during my last moments...
That's pretty deep. I've heard of "Quantum Immortality" but never thought of it like this.
When I had suicidal ideation, I didn't believe in anything beyond, so I started to wonder how dying would feel from my own POV... so "it will be a dream that, from my point of reference, will never end" is the conclussion I reached from hearing about dreams, coma dreams, and "saw life in front of my eyes" stories.
The brain putting itself into a dream that the consciousness just considers infinite... dying for the outside, but "living" forever in the inside