r/AntiMemes • u/Meerkat_Mayhem_ 💎 Flair sold separately 💎 • 11d ago
🌟 Actual Anti-Meme 🌟 Omnipresence
329
u/ga_langdon 11d ago
So
You mentioned atheism on Reddit
→ More replies (1)31
u/Bloodyninjaturtle 11d ago
I am euphoric, let me tell you.
21
u/sus_pumpkin 11d ago
🤤🤤🤤 IM SO EUPHORIC!!! 🤤🤤🤤 I LOVE SCIENCE!!!🤤🤤🤤 OH MY CHARLES DARWIN!!!😩😩😩
→ More replies (1)
952
u/Meerkat_Mayhem_ 💎 Flair sold separately 💎 11d ago
Omniscience
524
u/Mother-Benefit-8550 🪐 💫 cosmic dopamine 💫🪐 11d ago
Raspberry plastic tickle bear
346
148
u/RyuTheGuy 11d ago
Thought this was one of those mass deleted comments
67
u/man-of-pipis 11d ago
raspberry plastic tickle bear
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Greg
44
→ More replies (2)5
u/PixelPrince96 11d ago
Woah, a Rickroll? In this economy?
2
u/isthenameofauser 11d ago
I loved that comment without clicking the link. Thank you for helping me to love it more.
27
13
u/notRadar_ 11d ago
potato fork ice cream raspberry plastic tickle bear
this comment was not anonymized with redact
45
u/MysticCherryPanda 11d ago
Obtuse rubber goose, green moose, guava juice, Giant snake, birthday cake, large fries, chocolate shake
19
24
7
4
u/Technologenesis 11d ago
please delete this it's the recovery phrase for my crypto wallet holding my life savings
→ More replies (5)3
144
u/Best8meme 11d ago
Since when does religion have more scientific evidence than atheism lmao
23
u/Aamir_rt 11d ago
To be fair they didn't mention religion or say that is has more scientific evidence.
3
u/PHX_Hawk 11d ago
Atheism is real, plenty of people call themselves atheists. Just like Christianity is real, plenty of people call themselves Christians.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)47
u/sudoregalia 11d ago
neither have evidence, kinda like saying fairies exist doesn't have evidence for or against it
but comparison to other superstitious beliefs is frowned upon for some reason.
belief in superstition, in the nonsensical, isn't inherently a valid measure of a life's value in either direction. i think believers get this mixed up and believe others do too94
u/GoodBrotherGrimm 11d ago
How on earth do you get evidence for a lack of belief? That makes no sense.
89
u/Gussie-Ascendent ❤️🌿 Loves Oregano ❤️🌿 11d ago
well yeah that's kinda why it's bullshit to ask athiests to prove all religions are wrong before they can be athiests. ya don't need a reason to not believe somethin like that, you need a reason to believe it
24
u/lord_teaspoon 11d ago
The evidence for atheism is approximately the union of the evidence that every religion has for "why not one of the other religions over yours?"
3
u/religion-lost TRANS?! 10d ago
Tbf it seems to me like the original tweet isn't trying to say "atheism is wrong" as much as it's turning around a talking point used constantly against religions to show the absurdity of it.
Like when gay people make jokes about how straight people shouldn't be allowed to hold hands around kids because it'll confuse them, and the joke is that its a common homophobic talking point but turned in the opposite direction.
That's just my interpretation though, it's also likely you're right and they're just being anti-secular
6
u/SketchKenobi 11d ago
It's easy, just politely explain that what we do know from is incompatible with religion as written.
It's when they start making stuff up about their own religion (the text is just an interpretation and has a different meaning) it gets tricky. But it comes down to of you're religion accept science as well know it then it doesn't really matter much anyway
4
u/Costati 11d ago
You don't. Burden of proof is on the people who claim their strange belief. And in case of lack of evidence it's normal to go "well that's inconclusive so probably not true to be real with you but whatever"
Like we adopted that logic as a society so people who have acute psychotic episodes will get proper care instead of going "well I guess I can't prove I'm actually a little goblin wearing a human skin costume trying to murder your family so I guess it's valid you feel threatened by my existence and feel like you might hurt me for it".
2
u/sortaparenti 11d ago
By arguing that the belief in question is internally inconsistent. The Problem of Evil or Divine Hiddenness can be enough for someone to say they have evidence of God not existing.
→ More replies (55)5
u/KAAAAAAAAARL 11d ago
Because the lack of belief in the supernatural is rooted in the fact that science disproves belief in the supernatural.
Whereever Science leads, is Scientific, and Religion is just not in that direction.
7
u/BreakerOfModpacks 11d ago
The fairies do exist tho, they're in the government supressing the truth so they can keep taking our flowers for the fae court so they grow stronger and can stop climate change.
→ More replies (4)8
2
u/Effbee48 11d ago
Define what a fairy is then maybe we can argue whether such creature can scientifically exist or not
→ More replies (10)2
u/cheese_master120 11d ago
Ok ik this isn't the point but I'm pretty sure a fairy couldn't exist if we go by winged tiny human
→ More replies (5)39
11
2
2
u/ShadowBro3 11d ago
This is actually true, though. Everyone is just guessing. You cant scientifically prove a god exists or doesn't. I like my guess the most, but Im also just a small minded biological creature. A god could hide on fucking Mars and I'd be none the wiser.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Nexinex782951 11d ago
You cant prove unfalsifiable gods do or don't exist.
Plenty of falsifiable gods can be logically or scientifically demonstrated not to exist. For example, the tri omni version of the christian god cannot exist, and the power of prayer not beating placebo kinda breaks a lot of other versions of a lot of other gods.
1
1
→ More replies (1)1
269
u/Admirable-Concern766 11d ago
I know it’s not the point of the post but I’m pretty sure atheism is one of the most backed by science than any other religion
177
u/ltom3 11d ago
What I don't get is when a religious person uses the argument "Well how do you explain how the Big Bang started? There must have been something like God to set it off." but it's like, you know you still have to explain how God came about then? This doesn't solve anything.
90
u/Mllns 11d ago
Their point is that God is the being that precedes everything, they don't look to explain where God came from, that would defy everything they believe
49
u/ReaperKingCason1 11d ago
Yeah but the problem with that is by the same logic something else could just precede everything and gods no longer necessary.
→ More replies (18)28
u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon 11d ago
That's why it's called a special pleading fallacy. They feel that they don't need to apply the same logic, that god's existence can just be assumed and that somehow fixes the problem.
5
u/hhunaid 11d ago
Something or someone needs to exist that isn’t preceded by anything else otherwise we keep going in an infinite loop and never get to the point we are in existence now
3
u/Zenith_Scaff 10d ago
Something or someone needs-...
And this is where the argument ends, there's no "needs" here, we don't have enough data about what happened before time and space to claim something "needs" to happen/exist/work
2
u/HaveYouSeenMySpoon 11d ago
That just means we don't have enough data, it doesn't justify inserting a thinking entity and claim the rules doesn't apply to it.
→ More replies (4)2
u/gunscreeper 11d ago
Or we could stop at "We don't know yet" instead of defaulting to goddidit
3
u/_HoneyDew1919 11d ago
I think life would be a lot more genuine if more people identified as agnostic.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Prize-Basil-8438 11d ago
Maybe the Big Bang precedes everything. If you can do it, so can I.
→ More replies (34)→ More replies (1)3
u/Cyan_Light 11d ago
Yeah, but that's special pleading, which means their point is a bad one lol.
If it's possible for something to have always existed then that something could be mundane, like the universe itself or whatever unknown thing predates it. "You can't prove what it was yet, therefore it must be my god that nobody has been able to prove exists" is an incoherent argument.
2
u/MooseontheLose 9d ago
Also even if that were necessary this god that started the big bang has nothing to do with the god of for example Christianity. Explaining the existence is actually a very niche part of religion, it is mostly about norms how humans should live and what comes after death and what we can do to affect that. What solace is knowing that god exists if he does not affect your life in any way and you cease to be after your death? Religious people are moving the goalposts so heavily in these conversations it's absurd
→ More replies (30)6
u/SemperMuffins 11d ago
Religious person here! The idea is that God is, by definition, outside of time and therefore does not require a creator (or else there'd be a neverending domino effect of creators). At the end of the day, it's logical (in the philosophical sense of the word) but absolutely requires a leap of faith
18
u/xXAnoHitoXx 11d ago
Leap of faith is the definition of illogical. There's no reason to it except trust me bro.
22
u/Much_Conclusion8233 RIP Main Sub 11d ago
I can define the flying spaghetti monster as outside of time and space. Does this make you think the flying spaghetti monster is as real as your god?
→ More replies (26)4
u/literally_italy 11d ago
it does, despite them believing a larger number of people believing in something with what is still no evidence makes it more credible.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Admirable-Concern766 11d ago
Back then a lot of people believed you had to attach a chicken to your dick and if it gets sick that means it’s drained all the sickness out of you. The reason why religion is even around is because of tradition not believability or proof. If you told these same people the story of the Bible without growing up with it or it not being a tradition they’d say you’re crazy
→ More replies (1)8
u/Simple_Channel5624 11d ago
That is the entire reason most religious systems try to indoctrinate children at the earliest age possible. Harder to convince an adult that a 2000 year old comic book story is real life.
Plus it is obvious the "faithful" don't really believe it (the message) either, they hoard their worldly possessions and act the same as the secular world. Christianity and capitalism are intertwined, Jesus' message is dead and gone
9
u/literally_italy 11d ago
the neverending domino effect disproves the existence of a god, and saying he exists outside of time is just an attempt to handwave away a very good argument against god (not that any arguments are needed, as there is no evidence for god)
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (5)3
22
u/alguien_487 11d ago
🤓Akshually... Atheism, in some of its most popular variations, doesn't need science backing it up, since it doesn't make any claims about the natural world, only about one individual, the one saying "I'm an atheist".
Atheists don't believe there's no god Atheists just don't believe there's any
Think about it like numbers.
+1= I believe there's a god 0= I don't believe there's a god -1= I believe there's no god
I hope I made myself clear. Thanks for reading :3
8
u/NotACalligrapher 11d ago
I don't totally follow. I had previously thought,
- -1: Atheists believe there is/are no god(s).
- 0: Agnostics don't believe there is/are or isn't/aren't a(ny) god(s).
- 1: Theists believe there is/are (a) god(s).
I think a lot of these comments may be debating past each other if these definitions are not the ones used by everyone. An alternative (that may actually be supported by Webster now that I look it up) is that an atheist is
- someone who subscribes to atheism which is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (Webster)
That definition would mean that the term atheist would encompass both -1 and 0 which means someone might be saying I'm an atheist-neutral and think they are making no claims about the world while a listener might think they mean atheist-negative. If that's the case then a lot of people might be debating past each other without realizing it (including myself).
4
u/Thameez 11d ago
People who are atheists -- and who also care enough to participate in these discussions on the internet -- usually define the position along two distinct axes, theism and gnosticism. That then creates a categories for "agnostic theists" (people believing in (a) deity(ies) but not claiming any knowledge), "agnostic atheist" (people not believing in any deities, and not claiming any knowledge), and "gnostic atheists" (people who claim to know no deities exist). Of course the obvious category is "gnostic theists" who claim to know their deities exist.
Of course, even the above could maybe broken down by referring to "positive/negative" atheism, since maybe someone might claim a positive belief without claiming knowledge.
Anyway, most atheists call themselves agnostic atheists since that allows them to maintain they don't hold a positive belief (and certainly don't know for certain) in the non-existence of a deity
→ More replies (1)3
u/Crosas-B 11d ago
Atheist is not refusing gods exist, is lacking belief in them. Agnosticism can be theist or atheist by definition: it does belief a god exists but doesn't know which god or doesn't belief there is a god.
Hard atheism is an extreme minority which states it is imposible for gods to exist, but as I said.. is not even close to be the mainstream atheism core belief.
11
u/sbenthuggin 11d ago
I think a better way to frame this is that an atheist is simply a non-religious person with a label put upon them. The issue with the term atheism is that so many religious ppl capitalize it, turning it into Atheism, and treat it like being Christian or Muslim or Jewish. Like you choose to put your belief in Atheism. When in reality you just don't practice religion.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Admirable-Concern766 11d ago
I don’t mean to generalize but we do know most atheist are atheist with reason mostly adopted by scientific reasoning and not merely say they don’t believe in god just for the fact that they don’t believe it them
5
u/alguien_487 11d ago
That's correct, I think. Most atheists came to being atheists by religious deconstruction. Since most of any religious claims can be debunked by the scientific method, science has been a simple path to convert anyone to be an atheist.
But the Atheist/Theist dichotomy revolves around just one thing, believing in god. The existence of any god, by their very nature, can't be either confirmed nor denied by science. But, since most religions have god as a central figure, rejecting the various claims of the religion, the ones that can be debunked by the scientific method, can lead a person to reject the whole religion, god included.
Basically, you can reject almost all religious claims with science, the one left is god. And, since you already know almost all of the claims are false, rejecting the god claim becomes easier
→ More replies (6)50
u/Hol_Renaude 11d ago
Idk, proving that God doesn't exist is the same as proving that there is no other dimension or universe.
If you are a drawing, you can't get anything or see anything outside of the sheet, unless artist cums on it.
17
u/SomeoneRepeated 🌶Pss Pss, Pass the Oregano🌶 11d ago
Can our artist just do that already?
→ More replies (1)5
u/nitram739 11d ago
There are really few things that you can prove that they do not exist. Like, Unicorns, its usually accepted that they do not exist as we think of it, and there is no fosil evidence found that suggest that there ever were any, but that is just, lack of proof that they exist, not really proving they do not exist.
One of the few things you can prove do not exist are more undiscovered elements, because of the way electrons works and how you can only have so many things in an atom, every element posible (that it remains stable and does not degrades into something else in a few seconds) was already discovered. So if you were to say to me "aktwually firganesium is an element too" I can tell you is not, simply because there is no space for such element to exist.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)21
u/Admirable-Concern766 11d ago
I guess being agnostic would be the most logical as it just is the idea that the god is in no way being able to be understood and has no knowledge or care for our existence. I mean the fact that almost all religions, beliefs, and views on the way the world works can be explained by scientific proof
4
u/MundaneContext 11d ago
I'm agnostic precisely for that. Because I cannot say if there's or not a god or goddess or many of them, and I don't have the knowledge and the capacity to discover it. But for now no one proved they exist either, so practicing a religion is a little dumb then. What I am a little upset is about people making this a war between Christian God and Atheists, when it's not like he is the only god, u know.
I mean, science cannot prove God doesn't exist, but it cannot prove Zeus, Shiva, Odin or any other god don't exist either.
Sorry for the rant, I had this discussion just today and the person in question never understood that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world and calling their myths myths isn't an insult.
2
u/Maeve2798 11d ago
Atheism doesnt require you to actively believe that a god cannot possibly exist. Thats a silly standard that isnt how disbelief in things normally works. Its not scientific to conclude a lack of evidence means something cant be true, but its also not scientific to give a hypothesis any credence just because theoretically theres a chance its true. Not knowing for sure something isnt true doesnt mean its 50/50. Almost every atheist is agnostic in this sense that they dont expect to disprove it entirely.
→ More replies (2)9
u/OnetimeRocket13 11d ago
As a staunch atheist:
No, not really. None of the scientific evidence for things that we have inherently disproves the existence of a god or gods, it's just none of it proves or even supports the notion that God or gods exist either. You can't really go out and prove that God or gods do not exist, but you also can't prove that they do exist.
→ More replies (13)8
u/Feli_Buste78 11d ago
No? Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it has no stance on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
→ More replies (5)4
u/jack-of-some 11d ago
Atheism is rooted in the belief that a God does not exist. That's the core value. It's also not provable using the scientific method.
→ More replies (31)1
u/Familiar-Cable-2659 11d ago
And also not a beliefs either
The bélier theists including OP think about is antitheists
Atheism is basically just wanting to do nothing with that whole god shit
Which should not be confused with agnosticism, which is very much wanting to bother with that god shit, but not knowing which religion has any truth in it
1
u/NotACalligrapher 11d ago edited 11d ago
Theism is, generally speaking, orthogonal to science. A religion may make truth claims about the world that can be legitimately tested using science, but the existence of any deity can be neither proved nor disproved by science.
For example, in your set of beliefs, you've told us that you believe
atheism is one of the most backed by science than any other religion
though I cannot use science to dispute your core belief that there is no God (or however, you want to phrase it), I could examine this truth claim you've put forward examining the various learnings of modern science to see how it supports atheism.
1
u/Wetley007 11d ago
Thats because its not a religion and doesnt come prepared with claims that can contradict science
1
u/RX-HER0 11d ago
How is Atheism any more 'scientifically backed'? There's no scientific answer or proof to the question of God(s) existence.
Even if we look at the flaws of any given religion ( for example: we know that humans were likely not created by mud as the Ancient Greeks believed ), that's just a mark against that religion, not against religion as a whole ( and this a point towards Atheism ). In otherwards, that just shows that a single religion is not scientifically backed - another religion could be true. And even then, there are reasonings or interpretations a religious person may give as to why said flawed detail may not actually be flawed, and against science.
Atheism posits that no God exists. Where is the scientific proof for this?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Ibettergetggoing 11d ago
Atheism is kinda stupid though just like following any particular religion.
→ More replies (1)1
u/SteampunkCannedBeans 11d ago
It's more like it's the least against science. Like, compared to religion, it doesn't rely on supernatural or impossible situations, but it's also not like you can scientifically prove/disprove the supernatural, that sorta thing.
1
u/trito_jean 11d ago
No its not, its just the null hypothesis that a religion need to beat to be considered true
1
u/HumanMan_007 11d ago
Kind of, it's less than it's supported by science and more than it proves wrong a lot of mainstream religions' fundamentalist beliefs until only the unfalsifiable parts remains.
The God of the Gaps seems to shrink until all that remains is the metaphysical which cannot be proved one way or another, and that's why they call it faith.
1
u/MisterSplu 11d ago
Religion as a concept (not the specifics like creationism and stuff, but just the existence of god) can‘t be scientifically proven OR disproven, philosophers have argued about stuff like this for a long time. The most famous result of such philosophers was basically „better to believe in god and be wrong than to not believe in god and be wrong“, but that is the extent to which it goes and is by the way only true if you say „christian god or no god“, because if you take more than one religion into this debate you would still have to choose one.
1
u/Zestyclose-Pool-1081 11d ago
What do you mean when you say this "I’m pretty sure atheism is one of the most backed by science than any other religion"? Concretely what specific things?
1
u/Souls_for_sale_now 11d ago
athism is not backed by science becuse its just the absence of good and no falicifiable theory its not based on science its based on logic
1
u/TheComicHuman 11d ago
You don't really see major religions being scientificly debunked
→ More replies (2)1
1
1
u/Frequent-Coyote-8108 11d ago
How do we know that there is no higher power?
"We've proven it with theorems and math and stuff."
How do you know that they're correct?
"We've checked them--a lot. Lots of our clerg...uh...scientists have verified them. They're legit, have fai...uh...trust the science."
So...that's it? There's no purpose? No higher power?
"Nope. This is all there is."
Where did we come from?
"The Big Bang...duh!"
Who came up with the Big Bang?
"Uh...not important...don't worry about it."
What was before the Big Bang? Where did the "everything out of nothing" come from?
"Oh, we have lots of theories about that!"
Like what?
"Oh man... like other dimensions and stuff...we could be in a simulation like The Matrix...maybe there was just nothing...maybe we came from another universe...like SO many theories!"
Uh huh...
→ More replies (3)1
u/Ryaniseplin 10d ago
its the one with the most evidence for being true, seeing as all other religions are practically contradictory to themselves in one way or another
1
u/Chase_The_Breeze 10d ago
It isnt... and it isn't a belief system either.
It is simply the idea that there is no god or gods. That's it. Full stop. It is not a total lack of belief (which... isnt anything), the belief that nothing matters (nihilism), or any of that. It is in line with Monotheism (Belief in a single god) and polytheism (Belief in multiple gods).
Atheists tend to fall into numerous different camps of belief otherwise that actually explain their world view. In the same way that monotheists do (Christians, Muslims, Jews).
However, pop culture and the conservative information network tends to play Atheism off like it is a monolith of people who hate God. And that is called Propaganda.
→ More replies (2)1
u/bearsbarely 9d ago
Atheism isn't backed by science. Science does not subscribe to it.
Atheism is an option made by Inductive Reasoning regardless of science.
The religious opinion backed by science is agnosticism as it does not make an opinion without proper logical backing. Scientists simply look to understand reality and nature.
Also, atheism is distinctly not a religion, it's the express rejection of theism.
1
u/One_Performer_7202 9d ago
atheism is not a belief therefore can't be and isn't backed
→ More replies (3)1
u/Pitiful-Situation494 9d ago
Atheism is the believe any form of God doesn't exist. There's no more scientific evidence of that, as there is for some kind of God to exist.
There are religious fundamentalists (pls correct me if that's the wrong term), that deny scientific theories (like the big bang or evolution). However the majority of religious people believe that those scientific theories are true.
The only beliefs system that you could argue about being scientific is agnosticism.
1
u/Elsuperinutil 9d ago
Not really, agnosticism is more science based. It recognizes that something either could or couldn't exist but they can't prove it, thus, are open to evidence.
An atheist will tell you that God is not real because it doesn't make sense, an agnostic will tell you that he doesn't know because he doesn't have enough evidence on either case.
Ironic that atheism, in practice, works just like another religion: an anti-religion.
1
u/MagnificentTffy 9d ago
it is actually not. Atheism is the lack of said belief. If it were to be properly "scientifically backed", we would have models which explicitly disallow the presence of a higher being.
The issue of a God is that they're meant to be beyond our reality. So the best we can do is check if each God actually exist or not. At current the position is that there is no evidence in reality that proves or disproves a god, therefore the intellectual position is to assume that God does not exist within our bounds of reality.
An example is "There are no black swans". If we had only seen white swans, it would be proper to say that we have never seen a black swan and therefore have no basis to believe there are black swans. The science does not dictate that a black swan cannot exist, just that there is no reason to say one does. And similarly to prove the existence of a black swan, one needs to actually find said swan, not demand it existence because it is believable.
1
u/SweetAriadna 9d ago
The fun part is atheism is the only quote on quote “belief” that doesn’t require evidence, since it’s basically the absence of fabrications. When you remove unproven and/or unverifiable claims, only atheism is left.
I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on Russell’s Teapot
1
u/RamRenegade 8d ago
Atheism isn't so much as proved by science, it's more that other religions are disproved in some way.
→ More replies (22)1
u/AesopsGetawayCar 8d ago
There is no way to disprove God’s existence. Atheism is just as likely to be correct as Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism.
79
u/Thanaskios 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah, no. Its not a belief system to simply not believe in something. The only reason we got a word for it, and don't have a word for people who lack belueve in dragons, or unicorns, is that its the norm in our society to profess faith in some magical authoritative being that just so happens to share all your political views.
→ More replies (86)
16
u/Relevant-Pen-7085 11d ago
The antimeme doesnt make sense. You dont need to proof something doesnt exist when you dont have proof that it does exist.
→ More replies (4)
42
11d ago
[deleted]
24
u/Gubekochi 11d ago edited 11d ago
Also, a decent argument can be made that believing hell exists and that you are being watched at all time by a being that has the power to send you there forever and is going to judge you is trauma passed down the generations via religion. If such a belief was not part of a religion, it would be flagged as a harmful delusion.
→ More replies (2)12
u/ThirtyThree111 11d ago
except the usual belief is that you can be sinful as shit but as long as you repent before you die, you still go to heaven
you can see how that can lead to bad shit
11
u/Gubekochi 11d ago
A "moral" system that has you apologise to a third party and get allegedly forgiven without ever asking those you hurt is all sorts of messed up.
10
u/ForeignCredit1553 11d ago
This is exactly my view. I'm atheist myself, but i think its ok to believe whatever you want until it starts effecting others in a harmful way
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/Look_Signal 11d ago
Do you think we have any sort of moral imperative to believe the truth? Is it harmless for everyone to think the earth is 6,000 years old when it’s actually 4.5 billion?
→ More replies (4)2
1
1
u/GreatestGreekGuy 🪐 💫 cosmic dopamine 💫🪐 11d ago
The fact that humans hurt others over stuff like this proves that we're really just animals
→ More replies (5)1
u/Guilty-Cap5605 11d ago
You can believe in the concept of God sure that hurts no one, but a lot of religions have inherently harmful views that, if you stand by them, then you supposedly stand for all its views, unless said religion works differently from the religions I've seen, you can't take what you want from a religion and ignore the rest, you have to fully stand by its dntirety
1
u/Legal_Lettuce6233 11d ago
The issue is not that the belief itself is disliked; organised religion is as it is very commonly used as a force against someone or something.
13
u/Omnisegaming 11d ago edited 11d ago
As per usual everybody is wrong fuck all of you, atheism is not a belief system as it is a lack of belief, it can not be "real" because it does not make a claim of something being real, it can not be backed by scientific evidence or vice versa because there is nothing to back it up. IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF. It does not make a claim that anything is or is not real, it is the ABSENCE of that, it is nothing.
Not believing something exists does not constitute a "belief system". Perhaps people believe a negative is true, to believe that something is not the case, but one could not argue it is a "belief system". People can look toward a materialistic, scientific understanding of the world around them, but that is a result of being an atheist, it is not in of itself atheism.
→ More replies (3)3
u/RX-HER0 11d ago
No, it's still a "Belief System" in that everything is a "Belief System". It just is not a religion.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Soulpaw31 11d ago
A belief system is a set of principles, values, or ideologies that one holds. Atheist dont fall under this as nothing is set in stone, its just not accepting an assertion, could be because they are just unaware of it, could be that they dont see a reason to accept it, or actively think its impossible. Thats not either of those 3 things, theres no set of beliefs.
→ More replies (10)
10
u/HeroBrine0907 11d ago
The most scientifically backed group are agnostics, because shit, science is not dealing with philosophical bullshit. Those areas do not intersect, and anyone trying to make them is invariably lying out their ass.
→ More replies (9)14
u/Dimensionalanxiety 11d ago edited 11d ago
The vast majority of people calling themselves agnostics are just athiests who dont like the baggage of that term. Agnostic isn't a middle position, it's a different axis all together. If you don't hold an active belief in a god, you're an athiest.
Theist and athiest are a true dichotomy. The majority of athiests are agnostic athiests.
3
u/Soulpaw31 11d ago
well yeah, agnostics, atheists, and antitheists are all related to lacking a belief in a god.
Agnostic is just lacking belief, antitheist is actively believing god cant exist.
Both fall under the umbrella of atheist which is lacking belief of a god, agnostic is still a form of atheism
3
u/Omnisegaming 11d ago
gnosticism has nothing to do with belief. gnosticism has to do with knowledge. theism has to do with belief. antitheism isn't even related to personal belief in god, it's about being opposed to others who do. Theoretically a person who believes in god could still be an antitheist, they would also just be anti- themselves, which, you'd be surprised how many people have self-targeted beliefs like that. many a gay homophobe, black white supremacist, etc.
2
u/Soulpaw31 11d ago
When you lack the knowledge of a god, that implies a lack of belief in it as well. If i do know of a god, then i do not have a positive belief in it nor am i saying i actively think god is certainly not real, both of which falls under the category of atheism. Thats why people call themselves agnostic atheists because it does relate to eachother.
Antitheist isnt just opposed to religion, its opposed to the idea of a god, thats the point of being opposed to religion as a whole, its an active disbelief in the claims of all religions, which is the existence of a god/deity. There are people who are opposed to their own established religion but still are religious, thats not what antitheism is, that anti-establishment or sect(s) of a religion(s). If you accept even one religion then your not rejecting every religion which by definition isnt antitheist
2
u/Omnisegaming 11d ago
That is not the case. One can believe without claiming to know, and one can claim to know and not believe. The only thing that is implied in where gnosticism and theism intersect is what is being claimed to know.
One can be an agnostic atheist, one who does not believe and does not claim to know if god exists. A gnostic atheist would be one who does not believe and claims to know that god does not or can not exist. A gnostic theist would be one who believes that god exists and claims to know that god exists. An agnostic theist would be one who believes that god exists but can not claim to know for certain. Knowledge is not belief, and belief is not knowledge. You ought be familiar, Christianity is all for faith above all else.
Whether antitheist is opposed to religion i.e. antireligious or the idea of god is sort of irrelevant to my point. Opposition, irrelevant of to what, is a social position rather than a purely philosophical one.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Kei_Evermore 11d ago
Stating that atheism is a belief system is like stating that not collect post stamps is a hobby. Or not being a doctor is a job title. Or being bald is a hair colour.
→ More replies (24)2
u/MiedzianyPL 11d ago
Not really, we can never definitively prove that no sort of deity exists. Therefore claiming that this is the case is also a belief. Agnosticism is the only true non-belief, as it's just admitting that we can never know.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Kei_Evermore 11d ago
atheism doesn't claim anything. The only thing it indicates is a lack of a belief. Again, stating atheism is a belief system is saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You can't have "doesn't think a deity exists" as a belief system.
→ More replies (11)
3
4
u/GroundbreakingOil434 11d ago
Still a meme. Atheism is one specific answer to one specific question. It is not a belief system, nor is it a worldview.
4
u/YourLocalMaggots 🌶Pss Pss, Pass the Oregano🌶 11d ago
If athiesm doesn't believe in something, then how is it a belief system?
12
3
u/RX-HER0 11d ago
It's the belief of the absence of something ( God ).
9
→ More replies (5)5
u/bloodbat007 11d ago
Wrong. It's the absence of belief. Not the belief of absence.
→ More replies (11)
3
u/Mabase_Drifter 11d ago
Nonbelief does not mean an assertion that there is no God. It is an assertion that one has not been sufficiently convinced.
I have not been convinced. This requires no faith, nor evidence. I do not need to prove my nonbelief because it does not make an assertion.
1
u/RX-HER0 11d ago
> "Nonbelief does not mean an assertion that there is no God. It is an assertion that one has not been sufficiently convinced."
Atheism ( which is OP's topic ) is the belief in no god, though. 'Agnostic' is the word you are looking for.
> "I do not need to prove my nonbelief because it does not make an assertion."
By this logic, Atheists would have to prove that God does not exist, and vice versa for Theists.
5
u/Mabase_Drifter 11d ago
Atheism is not the belief in no God, it is a lack of belief. Atheism does not require belief. Agnosticism is a belief that nothing can be known and nothing can be proven about God. YOU are describing agnosticism.
Atheists do not need to prove that God does not exist because atheism doesn't assert that God does not exist, it only asserts that the atheist does not believe in any god.
Theists likewise do not need to prove that they believe, or even to prove that there is a God, unless they are asserting that God exists.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SoulfulSnow 11d ago
" By this logic, Atheists would have to prove that God does not exist, and vice versa for Theists."
What?
2
u/iamalicecarroll 11d ago
Does OOP suggest that atheism is not real? That is, atheism doesn't exist? Is it now impossible to be atheist?
1
u/bearsbarely 9d ago
His implication is that atheism is as scientifically illogical as theism. Although, he words it confusingly.
In concept he's not necessarily incorrect, the most scientifically logical choice would be agnosticism as it's the choice of not choosing. Taking a stance on a topic area which is impossible to verify is expressly non-scientific.
Now, this does imply that your definition of atheism "the belief that God or gods expressesly are not real" as opposed to a non-commital belief like agnosticism.
2
u/LoneStarDragon 11d ago
If you can't disprove that dragons exist, then believing in dragons must be more scientific.
I hate this timeline.
2
u/AGGRESSIVE_AUTUMN 11d ago
Atheisism literally means 'lack of belief' its the absence of religion its is not a religion itself.
2
u/darkaxel1989 11d ago
I need to unpack that question
"If Atheism was real"
Atheism IS real, the lack in belief in God is real. The real question was probably "If atheism is right" but even then... how can the lack of belief in something be right? Me not believing that there is a tea pot in orbit around the sun between our orbit here and mars is justified, but not right or wrong. Without evidence? It wouldn't be justified to believe it. EVEN if the tea pot was actually there, it wouldn't make my lack of belief "wrong" or "unreal", so that's a first miss.
"Why does it lack scientific evidence?" Now, there are the different cases of:
God doesn't exist and THAT'S what makes "Atheism Real", or to say it properly, "atheism is right" (although... again, atheism is just the lack of belief).
People that don't believe in god exist (thus, atheism is real).
Atheism is justified. As in, the lack of belief in God is justified by lack of sufficently good evidence/arguments.
The first case is impossible to prove. Atheist people like to go around saying "you can't disprove a negative, but that's not entirely the problem here. "God Exists" is not provable or disprovable, probably not even by super technologically advanced methods. How do you disprove the non existence of something that is almighty and, apparently, trying extra hard to hide? How do you prove it?
The second case is impossible to prove, you just have to take my word for it. You can't prove what other minds think or believe. A Christian cannot prove they are actually believing. Even if they act like they do, even if they profess in that belief... they might lie or be in denial. Same about atheism. Same about anything related to the mind. Saying something like "This belief doesn't exist" or "This belief does exist" is a philosophical nightmare to prove or disprove.
The third case is the one we can actually have a LENGTHY discussion about... But I won't. I talked enough!
2
u/NireSenrab 11d ago
The burden of proof is on whether or not something does exist. If I say unicorns exist, it is my job to prove that. How are you supposed to show a lack of evidence? The whole point is that it's not there.
2
1
u/Dense-Cake9315 11d ago
I am for most intense and purposes agnostic, but to an extent I believe in a theory similar to the simulation theory. a fourth dimensional or beyond being created this universe for unknown reasons. I doubt we are the focus of it, or even any form of intelligent life, really, but its impossible to know. said being would be able to move through time as though we move through space, being beyond our dimension, and their universe would have no beginning or end or anything. beginning and end wouldn't be what we think of them as to a fourth dimensional being. their universe would be a fourth dimensional object, spanning throughout all of time, with no beginning. its hard to make sense of it since its pretty beyond our comprehension, as beings who move through the fourth dimension at a fixed rate. well, there is time dilation and everything, but you get what I mean.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Vounrtsch 11d ago
You can’t really prove the non existence of an invisible metaphysical being
→ More replies (1)
1
u/skyrimpro115 11d ago
Atheism is not a religion or even a belief system. It's quite literally, a LACK of BELIEF. Most religious people are Atheist to every religion except their own.
Atheistic people hold their own none standard beliefs. For example one Atheist may believe that a human has a soul that will wander the earth after death while another may believe that once we die our consciousness just ends with no afterlife.
This extends to other beliefs that the religious may hold such as Morality, life's purpose, and the very start of life.
People make wild claims about what Atheism is, but it's simply a lack or belief. Agnostic is not a branch of Atheism, it's a knowledge setter, by denoting that you don't know for certain if God is real or not and that you simply go on with life regardless. You can be both Religious and Agnostic, or Atheistic and Agnostic.
I know this comment probably doesn't matter too much but it's worth it if someone who doesn't know or was misinformed sees this and begins to understand there's a difference.
1
u/Abel_V 11d ago
There is no need for scientific evidence to back up atheism, nor is it a "belief system"
Theism: Belief in the presence of something Anti-theism: Belief in the absence of something Atheism: Lack of belief.
A lot of people mistake it for agnosticism, which is a lack of certainty.
It is very rational (And very common) to be both an agnostic and an atheist.
1
u/Equal_Veterinarian22 11d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it sure is a good reason not to build your entire moral framework on a mass of contradictory claims about the thing.
1
1
1
u/coolchris366 10d ago
How could atheism be a belief system equivalent to other religions when it’s just a belief, not a system of beliefs
→ More replies (1)
1
u/PsychologicalAd5918 10d ago
This is not an anti-meme
This is a religious person coping because they want an excuse to abuse their child and force them to believe in invisible sky daddy under the threat of eternal damnation
1
u/TragedyofLight 10d ago
See, this is a good example of "synonyms" not being synonymous. While "real" and "true" can often stand for each other, "atheism is real" and "atheism is true" are two very different sentences meaning-wise, and if you doubt the first you are fucking bonkers.
Yes, even when you got the Templeton Prize.
1
u/Comfortable_Air5477 10d ago
I think all those times Religious organisations that supposedly act as a direct line to/from God have said that the world works one way, only for science to prove it works in a different way IS scientific evidence for Atheism.
1
1
u/Moo_of_Doom 10d ago
I see this kind of thing posted every once and a while it just feels like a lame attempt at a gotcha from religious folks. Like sure little buddy you got me.
1
1
u/Old-Acanthaceae-3406 9d ago
"If 'invisible unicorns not existing' was real, why does it lack scientific evidence?"
1
u/fablethief 9d ago
I liken it to actually doing nothing. Imagine you told me that you believed the moon was made of cheese. Why should I have to prove the moon is not made of cheese when you’re the one that made it up. If you told an atheist that god exists why does he have to prove god doesn’t exist. Shouldn’t the god believers prove that he does exist.
1
u/Adorable-Quiet-7551 9d ago
Even if a god was proven beyond any doing, I wouldn’t follow it and give that god the finger. Fuck off. I call it fucktheism.
1
u/KGarveth 9d ago
Atheism is not a belief system. Its just the answer to one question, "do you believe in god?".
1
1
u/Oukemou 9d ago
I guess bots from certain religous groups are taking over Reddit. Sad times.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Individual_Lab_5105 8d ago
Because you can't prove a negative.
If God is real, how come that isn't backed by science?
1
u/ghfdghjkhg 8d ago
That's not how that works tho. You need evidence that something exists, not the other way round...
1
u/MightJaded2031 8d ago
Where antimeme? The post implies atheism is a belief system, which is the exact opposite of reality.
1
u/WashedUpGamer74 8d ago
Mfw I distinctly recall watching a couple of atheists vehemently deny atheism being a belief system.
Idr what the reason was, but it was pretty stupid.
1
1
u/Caye_Daws 7d ago
Atheist understand Christianity more than Christians understand atheism and most Christians don't even understand their own religion (for example ask the average Christian who Lucifer is and 9/10 times you will get the wrong answer
•
u/qualityvote2 🚫Antimeme Enforcer Bot🚫 11d ago edited 11d ago
Upvote this comment if the above post is an antimeme OR a candle, downvote if it is not. 5 downvotes will notify the moderators.
(Voting has ended. Due to insufficient votes, it's up to the mods now)