May your water always be salted
Ramen
Honestly, “it’s easier than explaining” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here 😅
You can just call yourself an atheist. Hell, if you call yourself a pastafarian you are basically an anti-theist.
Atheist and agnostic are not synonyms.
The words do not mean the same thing, but they often refer to the same people.
That is, most self-labeled atheists would be best described as “agnostic atheist” and most self-labeled agnostics would also be best described as “agnostic atheist.”
No, but if you also find all religions audacious and absurd, then wouldn’t atheist be a more accurate term anyway?
They are terms for different axes of belief.
Atheist and theist refer to whether someone believes in any kind of theism. Anti-theism and pro-theism would take it further in terms of whether you want to promote or reduce the amount of theism.
Agnostic and gnostic merely indicate a level of certainty in any belief. Its extremely rare that people are perfectly neutral between atheism and theism. They usually lean in one direction or another, so agnostics are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheist. They are usually the latter, as they are also often atheists trying to minimize the social costs of being a non-believer.
all agnostics are atheists because they dont believe in god
That is not true. There are gnostic athiests and agnostic deists.
I’m anti-theist and I want to slay all gods.
Why agnostic? Like… If there’s no proof, why believe in the existence of a deity at all?
For me personally, atheism is saying ‘there is nothing more to the universe or reality, what you see is what you get’ which is extremely pretentious. Agnosticism is admitting to the possibility that there’s something going on here, but we don’t know and would likely be incapable of understanding what it is.
Atheism: I don’t believe in the existence of god(s)
Agnosticism: I haven’t seen any proof for god thus can’t believe in one
It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists. “See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”
It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists. “See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”
This, basically. At least that’s how I used it. As a kid living in the bible belt, admitting you were an atheist was, in their eyes, literally no different than being a cannibalistic devil worshipper. Agnostic was easier for them to swallow (albeit because odds are high that most of them didn’t even know what it meant, and figured it was some sect of Christianity they were unfamiliar with).
When I got older, and escaped the institutional bigotry woven into nearly every facet of society down in the bible belt…the lovely place where our biology teacher also headed the bible club and refused to teach evolution yet somehow still had a job as a biology teacher in the public school system, as a small example…that was when I finally gained the confidence to self-describe as an atheist.
“See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”
I identity with this. When I was younger I identified as agnostic, as I saw it as a more socially acceptable option than atheism which allowed me to not have to pretend to be religious.
But I’ve identified as atheist for many years now. In my case by the time I did, everyone of significance in my life was nonreligious.
It’s the same thing really, but without the “negative” connotations usually attributed to atheism or atheists.
Atheists and Agnostics would obviously disagree. There’s a core philosophical difference between being convinced in the negative and being unconvinced in the affirmative.
That said, what are the consequences of being a Theist, an Atheist, or an Agnostic? I might argue that Theists and Atheists have history of leveraging their confidence into an active policy of discrimination and bigotry. Whether you’re a Chinese Communist cracking down on under-18 church attendance or an Israeli Zionist conducting a pogrom against Palestinians, there’s a habit of imbuing your personal beliefs with political teeth.
“See, I’m not really an atheist but agnostic. It means I’m not to be expelled from this community as a heretic”
The flip side of this being, “I’m not expelling you from the community for excessive display of religious ferver”.
It’s easier to sympathize with avowed Atheists in nations where atheism is a disenfranchised minority. But as soon as you give someone like Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris an ounce of political capital, they start cheer leading a genocide.
That, I think, is a real tangible difference. Agnostics tend not to begrudge other ideologies in the same way.
Who says that atheism involves being convinced of the negative? I’m an atheist because I’m not a theist. I’m agnostic because I’m neither convinced of the negative nor the affirmative. Both labels apply to me.
Who says that atheism involves being convinced of the negative?
The textbook definition: disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
I’m an atheist because I’m not a theist.
That doesn’t logically follow. You’re ignoring the third option of simply not having an opinion.
I’m agnostic because I’m neither convinced of the negative nor the affirmative
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is either unknowable in principle or unknown in fact.
That’s very different from a strict disbelief.
Disbelief just means not believing something. Not believing that a claim is true is not the same as believing that that claim is false. A lack of belief in any deities is not the same as a belief in a lack of any deities.
The prefix a- means without. If one is without theism, then they are a-theist. There is no third option. You have theism or you don’t. Having no belief one way or the other means you don’t have it.
The prefix a- means without.
Also, it often means “on,” “in,” or “at” (e.g., abed, ashore) or indicates a state of being (e.g., ablaze). It can also mean “in a manner” (e.g., aloud)
But now you’re getting into etamology, not colloquial application.
Atheism, at it’s heart, is an ideology. Agnosticism isn’t.
Disbelief just means not believing something
Disbelief means rejecting it, not having no thoughts or opinions on it
you can suspend judgement. that’s the reasonable thing to do. it’s literally the middle ground between accepting and rejecting a claim.
we don’t know and would likely be incapable of understanding what it is.
So aliens.
I mean… No? Maybe? Certainly not aliens as in biologically evolved creatures from another planet are involved, what is so hard to understand about that? Alien as in something completely foreign and unrecognizable to the human brain, sure.
You’d agree with more atheists than you’d think with that comment.
I was an agnostic for a very long time.
My main view of things - I couldn’t know if there was a god or if there wasn’t. But all that ultimate judgement shit never made any sense for me. If you’re just behaving decently because of fear of ultimate judgment, then you’re not a decent person. Ok if god would want me not to be an asshole, I’d need to be that out of my free will. And if a god demanded adherence to some random rules out of the blue - that god wouldn’t have a moral compass and I wouldn’t want to have to do anything with them in my life, being smitten down at the end would have been a consequence for me anyways.
I just want to be no asshole. So the question of there’s a god or not. I don’t care. God is irrelevant.
Thus: agnostic
I started staying I’m an atheist somw time ago, as that’s just quicker and I can go by without explaining.
Still - if there’s a god around, which is possible but improbable - I’m making sure I make fucking good use of the free will they gave me.
The issue I had with calling myself “agnostic” is that most Christians think of it as “undecided” (which it isn’t), so they’ll try to convert you. If you tell them you’re an atheist, they’re more likely to leave you alone (in my experience).
Most Christians think athiests just hate god. Basing your stance around irrational people is, itself, irrational.
I don’t. I’m still an agnostic. I just don’t tell people that if I think they won’t understand and it isn’t worth the time explaining it to them.
I’ve always considered agnostics to be atheists who just don’t wanna debate. At least that’s why I used to call myself an agnostic when I was younger.
I used to say agnostic because at that point all the atheist discussion I saw in public was aggressively anti-theistic, and I found it equally stupid to very strongly believe in either direction about things there’s simply no way to know. Now I just say atheist because it doesn’t mean only “I hate religion with passion” anymore
i call myself a devout agnostic. the justaposition of those words is inherently absurd since part of agnosticism and identifying as such is believing there is value to studying theology even if you yourself don’t believe the theologies you’re studying because ultimately prior to colonization, religion was how groups of people encoded and passed along their wisdom. however saying “devout agnostic” throws people enough off balance enough to introduce them to these concepts since so many say with their whole chest that they’re something when traditionally these terms have meant something else to the people who use them.
for example, an astounding (at least to me) number of people say quakers and unitarians aren’t christians. when you dig down on this you often find that this position is rooted in a believe (both positive and negative) that the fundamental mechanism and experience of christianity is trauma. however, when you look at the broader world of religion, you find that that’s mostly only Christian denominations rooted in the theologies of the roman empire such as roman catholicism and the various european orthodoxies like Greek and russian. however, the oldest denomination, Ethiopian Orthodox, would i think to the people who say quakers and unitarians aren’t christians, seem very unchistian. for that matter, i think so would Native America Christianity, Oriental Orthodox, and Armenianism. (fun fact, the Unitarian church is rooted in Oriental Orthodox, which is either the second or third oldest christian denomination)
Devotion to agnosticism is beautiful.
To me, it means I will passionately defend another person’s right to remain “undecided” on all things spiritual.
It can be surprisingly effective in some circles.
i will also strongly defend their right to have faith in something that gives them the strength to get through this messed wp world. i will simply brook no bullshit from anyone who use their theological positions for control, and that includes authoritarian atheists.
Eh, I think there’s a decent semantic dispute for it. It’s of course dependent on your definition of deity and is mostly an exercise of pedantry. However, with the size of the universe I think there’s a pretty decent chance that there exists an intellectual being that could be interpreted as being god-like to the human perspective.
Now I’m not making claims that this proposed being has ever had anything to do with humans, nor are they responsible for any universal creation. Just that the universe is big enough for the existence of something significantly more advanced than humans. That being said, the size of the universe that allows for the possibility of this proposal also makes it possible existence mostly pedantic.
We might be early, from how i understand the age of the universe. If we don’t great filter ourselves out of existence soon we may become the elder species. The universe is remarkably young
But agnostics don’t believe in the existence of a deity. Are you maybe confusing it with deism?
You can be an agnostic deist. Agnostic just means you have no firm belief. Most people who identify as “nones” in polls are technically agnostic, even if they personally believe in a higher power. Its a lack of certainty.
Most atheists are also technically agnostic atheists. A gnostic athiest would be someone who holds the absence of any higher being or spirituality as an almost axiomatic belief. Though they merely can be so certain that the small chance they’re wrong seems irrelevant to them.
For simplicity, I’ve always explained agnosticism as the belief that “I don’t know and neither do you”.
Agnosticism isn’t a lack of certainty; it’s a lack of knowledge. I am agnostic about many, many things. For example, Bigfoot. I haven’t seen any good evidence for the existence of Bigfoot (i.e., I have no knowledge of the existence of Bigfoot), so I don’t believe in Bigfoot. I’m the same way with the existence of gods.
Atheism just means without theism. If you aren’t theist, you’re atheist. Agnostic describes the position of lacking belief one way or the other. A lack of belief is not the same as a belief in a lack. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, because the belief that there are positively no deities is just as baseless as the claim that there are deities.
Theism is belief in gods; atheism is the opposite of that: non-belief in gods.
Gnosticism is knowledge of gods; agnosticism is the opposite of that: no knowledge of gods. (There is also a religious movement called gnosticism. That doesn’t relate here.)
The first is about belief and the second is about knowledge.
These are not incompatible. You can believe in something and claim to have knowledge of it (gnostic theism) or you can believe and claim to not have knowledge of it (agnostic theism). I have encountered Christians of both varieties.
For atheists, many (perhaps most) claim to have no knowledge of gods (agnostic atheism), and some claim that gods certainly do not exist (gnostic atheism). The latter demonstrate that the Christian exist, because logically an omniscient and omnipotent God can’t also be omni-benevolent, since suffering obviously exists.
I think we largely agree. Your comment is essentially a restatement of my point. Theism is a belief that they are gods, and atheism is a lack of belief that there are gods. That lack of belief can either come from a positive belief that there are no gods, or a withholding of belief one way or the other.
Speaking about myself specifically, it is equally untrue to say that I believe there are gods as it is to say that I believe there are no gods. The former means I am an atheist, and the latter means I am an agnostic. Both labels apply to me.
Atheism is just another belief
Reading comprehension ain’t your strong suit, is it?
What’s the proof that there is no deity at all?
I rest my case
It’s impossible to prove a negative, but if you were as clever as you think you are, you’d already know that
I’m not even going to bother with the whole “burden of proof” thing because I don’t think you’re capable of understanding it
It’s funny how you act like the stereotypical arrogant atheist who thinks of himself better because of his believe and everyone else is just too dumb to understand.
There are still so many wonderous mystical things left. A lot of them we will never be able to understand because they are so much bigger than us
It’s impossible to prove the existence of a higher deity as well because it’s part of its definition to not be proveable/observable/understandable to our minds.
Not everyone
You.
I serve the Omnissiah.
Blood for the blood god.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh…
If this is you, consider joining or supporting The Satanic Temple. This is why they exist, and they do more meaningful and practical good than a meme religion.
One of the core tenants of Pastafarianism is being too lazy or broke (or both) to actually contribute
“We don’t like religious symbols in public space, so let’s put more of these, yay!”
“Proselytism is bad, so we need to recruit more people to fight it.”
“The guy at the top is not a Nazi anymore, so it’s fine.”- statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged.
We don’t like religious symbols in public space, so let’s put more of these, yay!
Yeah, they try to put non-religious things instead like cool Dante’s inferno statues. End result is that the religious symbols are banned, or if they aren’t, that there are other non-religious symbols around them. As much as they are a religion legally, they are atheists and their symbols are not religious, just fancy branding.
Proselytism is bad, so we need to recruit more people to fight it.
Yeah, what’s weird about that? Fire is bad so we need to recruit more firefighters to fight it. TST does not proselytize, as they don’t try to convert you into any religion. The are just an NGO.
As much as they are a religion legally, they are atheists and their symbols are not religious, just fancy branding.
They are religious, because Satanism is a religion. I am a member of TST and a religious Satanist. This is covered in the FAQ on TST’s website.
TST is an atheistic religion. That is not a contradiction because you don’t need to believe in gods to have a religion (see also Buddhism).
They did try to put a baphomet statue in front of a 10 commandments monument in Arkansas. They are fighting for a plurality of religion, not secularism.
If I wanted to contribute to a secular cause, I would much rather contribute to a secular organization to begin with.TST does not proselytize
But the only times you hear of them is when people are trying to get more folk implied (or when they send a lawsuit, but that’s an other story). TST plays the card of a non profit when they don’t want to be associated with religious weirdos, and the card of religion when they want a special treatment. In the end it’s a knockoff religion that hijacked the name “satanism” while replicating what they denounce of christians.
Fire is bad so we need to recruit more firefighters to fight it.
It’s much closer to putting up advertisement against advertisement.
They are just an NGO.
That’s not true. It’s a bunch of for-profit organizations coupled with a recognized nonprofit church so they can be exempted from taxation. See here : https://the.satanic.wiki/index.php/The_Satanic_Wiki . Also, as a supposedly non-profit org, they do not disclose their financial information, which is usually a big red flag.
But the only times you hear of them is when people are trying to get more folk implied
Yes, and that’s plain old recrutiment/advertising of their cause. Proselytization refers to trying to convert someone to a religion, which they don’t do.
It’s much closer to putting up advertisement against advertisement.
Correct.
That’s not true. It’s a bunch of for-profit organizations coupled with a recognized nonprofit
Yes, so an NGO. Where did I say they are a non-profit?
Proselytization refers to trying to convert someone to a religion, which they don’t do.
They do claim it’s a religion. It is legally a religion. When they are recruiting, it is proselytism. Also, proselytism is part of the definition of a church in most countries, that is why, for instance, the Church of Satan is not legally a church in the US, because they do not proselytize. By their own saying and by the government, TST is a religion and they do proselytize.
Where did I say they are a non-profit?
You said it is just an NGO. I mean, yeah, but you could say that about pretty much anything. But clearly there is something more to it than the average NGO, with them being both a church and a couple for-profit organizations.
I’ve never heard of TST proselytizing. When and where have you seen this?
Also, proselytism is part of the definition of a church in most countries, that is why, for instance, the Church of Satan is not legally a church in the US, because they do not proselytize.
Please post evidence for this.
The US government is pretty hands-off when it comes to deciding what is and isn’t a religion. It’s that whole First Amendment thing.
Well, here and now, with the original comment asking to join them. I do have some anecdotes but they aren’t really relevant here, I guess.
Here is the CRA rule and the IRS one
Both state that “advancement of religion” is a requirement, which is quite close to proselytizing (promoting and manifesting religious belief).
The thing is that both countries were funded by christian people, so their definition of religion is biased towards it, so you can’t really have an individualistic religion like satanism be recognized.
We can also note that Canada is discriminating against non-theistic religions and asks quite explicitly to “support and maintain missions and missionaries to propagate the faith”. Canada is still a religious state, after all.
Someone missed the point
Sithrak is the only one true god.
… and piracy! yeah
As in the R.E.M. song: “boobs are my religion”
Now i can’t unhear that.
Not complaining.
im torn between tst and secular buddhism. Luckily they are not mutually exclusive or demand they are the only way.
I’ve encountered several TST members who also practice Buddhism. It seems to be the religion that overlaps the most. It seems odd to me, because I thought Buddhism rejected the material world while TST embraces it, but I’m probably missing something.
embracing the material world is a different satanism. tst has the seven tenents which are mostly about human rights.
How are those not embracing the material world? The 5th tenet makes it explicitly materialist.
The leaders aren’t sitting around meditating. They’re in court, doing material things.
I apologize. When you said embrace the material world I thought you meant some of the form of satanism that is kinda hedonistic. Its an athiest religion so does not recognize an actual metaphysical world and does focus in how to be in the actual material world. I view much of the tenets being about the cognitive/mental part of our existence as opposed to the experiential material. For me buddhism is more about that mental type of existence. So tenent 1 completely overlaps as compassion, loving kindness, is what is being fostered. 2 and 3 and even 4 and 5 are kinda funny as in some ways given buddhism would kind of agree but believes self is a kind of illusion. 6 and 7 I would say fit well with 7 sorta a reflection back on 1.
I list myself as Bokononist. I’ve been part of many granfalloons, but I’ve yet to find my karass
And the piracy, of course.
I remember watching an interview with a mushroom man, he posited that humans have receptors built in for magic mushrooms because humans used to have an organ that provided hallucinogenic euphoria. This allowed humans to survive in groups without killing eachother, then religion eventually evolved socially and replaced it. Now that we have technology and modern governments thats slowly replacing religion.
It was a neat idea anyways. Its also neat to think about how religions could be a form of evolution, even though they arent technically biological changes.
If you’re into that kind of speculation, you might enjoy “The Cosmic Serpent” by Jeremy Narby.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Have you ever done mushrooms? This theory makes no sense.
I’d rather trip tbh
I believe it’s impossible to prove the existence of two gods.
I’m a diagnostic.
I don’t drink tea.
I’m an atheaist
I hate definite articles, I’m an a-the-ist
God, my mother is going to cackle at that one
Nice, tell her we all said hi! She’ll know who you mean.
Ramen.
I prefer my men cooked , thank you
