top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 4 months ago (20 children)

Anon blames Atheism for being a pos

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 4 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    That’s very true, we never believed in Christmas/religion but never spoiled/ruined it for others, it was their enjoyment.

    Granted when we have a kid, we don’t think we’ll be telling them that “Santa is just a famous character of Christmas, and some people have fun believing he’s real, so don’t ruin their fun either” or something like that. Still have plenty of years to think of how to word it better lol :P

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Granted when we have a kid, we don’t think we’ll be telling them that “Santa is just a famous character of Christmas, and some people have fun believing he’s real, so don’t ruin their fun either”

    Sorry if I'm misreading this, but personally I don't see a problem in telling your own kids that Santa isn't real.

    You can still give gifts if you want, and having them be addressed from people you care about makes it more meaningful tbh. Plus, it's kinda fucked up to normalize lying to your kids

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Yes, we also fund it very fucked up to lie to a kid about how some random ass guy is stalking your every move to determine if your a good or bad person and thats the determination if having presents or nothing at all.

    However, its not our place to tell other parent’s kids that Santa isn’t real, and telling our kid its just a popular character would be not only the truth but also easier for them to explain. Like a mascot of some sort yk?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    I never got the talk about Santa. I think my parents just assumed that I was intelligent enough to be able to work it out on my own, which I was. I'm sure at some point I did believe in Santa but I can't remember ever believing, I knew it was just my dad, but I got presents so I didn't care.

    Kids can be quite pragmatic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Honestly, I think i will "lie" about Santa. Simply because it doesn't really matter and it is fun for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Yeah, its pretty obvious peoppe are lying anout Santa once you realize the North Pole has no land.

    Santa clearly is from the South Pole.

    Pretty genius actually, getting people to look for him on the opposite side of the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Something to consider: do you want to normalize lying to your kid? I realize that's an antagonistic way to phrase it, but that's pretty much what's happening

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    This is such a boring thing that people say all the time.

    Lying is normal. You should be lying. Lying isn't morally wrong if it is not done for morally wrong reasons. My child should be lying to me. I should be lying to my child.

    And my children will understand the difference between lying to e.g. prevent a surprise to be ruined and lying to avoid facing consequences.

    It is such a black and white thinking. It is so boring too. I will teach my children violence because 1 day, they might need it too.

    And sidenote: e.g. telling your child that they can "trust" the security or the police if they get lost in a large crowd, is a lie. But one that is true enough that the child is safer with them than alone in a crowd. Telling your child that e.g. a electrical signal is travelling from the tv station through a wire to your tv, would be a lie if there is some fiber cables somewhere between them, or a satellite connection. Yes, simplifications are lying. We will lie anyway to enable them to navigate the far too complex world and slowly learn about the real underlying complexities.

    And obviously, there is a difference between making them write letters to Santa and telling them Santa brings gifts for Christmas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This is such a boring thing that people say all the time.

    What a boring response to an argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    What argument? You parroted an question. That you think you made an argument, highlights that you parroted the question. Even if you want to understand the question as an argument, a basic inspection of the implied premise that lying is bad, is enough to dismiss the argument as lazy and surface-level.

    If you don't like it when people call your output boring, say something worthwhile.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I get it, I too had an angsty teenage atheist phase (minus the abuse and arson), took a while and the folks just stopped trying to get me up for church. This is why most religions have a "coming of age" event where you are recognized as an adult and choose to stay with the group. I would guess most parents dont know how to react when their kid makes that decision for themselves before then...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 104 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    chocolate doesnt grow on trees

    bruh

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago*

    This had me thinking of why the english language uses cocoa. Obviously it is cacao, most other languages use the real name as well. One of those "too hard to pronounce" situations? Habit from referring to the beans? Though that second option doesnt really answer the question, why cocoa and not cacao 🫠

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Raw ingredients aren't the final product. Cows don't produce cheese.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago

    Anon learns the hard way that for most families, Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity especially when kids are involved.

  • source
  • [–] 73 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Great thing about atheism Anon, no one made ha do that shit but you, and you get to take full responsibility for your actions without the cop-out of "demonic possession". Take that beating with pride knowing that you posses radical freedom.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    he must be frightened to think about cocoa trees!

    or genetically modifying trees to grow whatever you want!!!!! 😱😱😱😱

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    This is the best part lmao. This guy not knowing chocolate's main and defining ingredient does actually grow on trees is peak reddit atheist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Man you should be charging reddit rent to be living in your head like this. Greentext is 4chan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I know the meme arrows come from 4chan dude. But this is Reddit atheist behavior. Bro is probably the author of the "euphoric" quote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    Anon the grinch

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    science doesn't allow chocolate to grow on trees

    SMRT

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago

    Speaking as someone who was a born nihilist, atheism ain't got shit to do with that, you were just a reactionary turd. Get in to goth like a normal person.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    That dad? Albert Einstein.

  • source
  • [–] 142 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    Sounds like Atheism, like all belief systems, empowered an asshole with self-righteous validation. Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn't mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Atheism, like all belief systems

    You really should educate yourself a little bit more to get to the baseline level.

    Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.

    Oh, nevermind, you're one of those feel-good nonsense wafflers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.

    Learning that being right doesn't make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.

    The satanic temple's 7th tenet sums it up quite well.

    Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different

    Only theists try to bring atheism down to a belief system.

    By that logic: absence of being on fire is kind of being on fire. Not drowning is a specific type of drowning. Vacuum is a particular form of atmosphere. Being an idiot is just a form of wisdom.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Atheism does require belief. Even if it's only in the axioms of physics.

    As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.

    Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.

    Oh and the options "on fire" and "not on fire" obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.

    Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.

    Please stop being on such a diet.

    Now you're confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.

    Go eat fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I'm scientifically trained (physics specifically), I'm also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.

    Interestingly, science has very few "facts". Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.

    E.g. I don't know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year's time. The evidence says it's practically a certainty, but it is not a true "fact". It's a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    So technically, in math we refer to the core "ideas" from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it's more like - "if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics".

    Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating "fact (repeatable observation)" with "fact (tested causal mechanism)"

    So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that "there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments" IRL we can use this interchangeably with "I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables". Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables

    And the "trained physicist" confuses that with "belief".

    Literally some neurologists say he can be cured of that by eating more fish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Right, so that, er is not what we are talking about. You seem do be under the impression that "facts" are undisputable. They are not. We believe them, because we can put them to every test we can think of, to build a body of evidence that lends credence to a 'theory', hence the requirement for statements to be falsifiable.

    This theory of knowledge is a hard requirement for any field associated with research and is well defined. In this case, we must default to the NULL hypothesis ( X does not exist) because we cannot formulate a falsifiable statement for ( X does exist). We can falsify our NULL by providing evidence for X ( X is this, X is here, X can do this). However, for most tests we default to alpha = 0.05 for statistical significance because of convention, and because data must be gathered in batches, sometimes inaccurate. Likewise, proving life on Mars is hard, because we must first falsify every other possible theory before we can claim "the presence of this compound cannot be explained by any other theory aside from the presence of life" as we cannot observe anything directly.

    I am not going to teach a lower level stats class in a comment section, but our physicist is correct in stating that this is a belief , because that is what it is - a extremely well tested belief, that we can consider to be "fact" in common parlance. You could of course chose not to believe it, if you can disregard all of human achievement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    You seem do be under the impression that “facts” are undisputable

    No idea how you got it. Facts must be objective and verifiable. They can be proven wrong.

    We believe them

    You're confusing facts with justified true belief JTB.

    I am not going to teach a lower level stats class in a comment section,

    Good, because you don't seem qualified.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    I used to be big on atheism but I do think it is also a belief system now. I realized that when a christian friend asked me "if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God, would you still believe he doesn't exist ?"

    So, anyway, I say I'm agnostic and that I really dislike organized religion now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    Even if you bet on the right horse

    As if there were any other way to hold any kind of opinion about what could be beyond the bounds of reality as we know it, but to just bet on shit we don't know the first thing about. It's all just bets. Nobody knows and everyone is pretending that not only are they right but their rightness is of a superior quality than the claimed rightness of others. They're still all just blind morons betting on horse races that are fixed by minds far closer to the truth and in control of it than they.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

    The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.

    They especially have the advantage over the people standing outside who are pretending there are magical centaurs in the park that grant wishes if you're not gay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.

    No, the metaphor breaks down at that point because there is no peeking over the wall, there is no listening to talk from inside the stables. We're not even at the track. It's all shit that is beyond observation, beyond calculation, beyond any kind of verification or validation. It is a thing nobody has any good reason to act like they know anything about in a scientific capacity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago

    "You know what I hate the most about religion? Its the way they try to shove their beliefs down your throat!"

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    science doesnt allow chocolate to be grown on trees

    Not with that attitude it doesnt. Give us a few hundred years and we'll have them growing it fully formed, with caramel inside.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah that period of time, where you believe nothing matters, so consequences don't matter, until you realize that just because it doesn't matter in the long run, it still sucks and you still have to deal with it, is one of the more challenging aspects of childhood atheism.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That's not atheism, that's nihilism which is different.

    Atheists don't believe in God, largely because religion doesn't really answer any of the big questions. No particular mode of behaviour is required of an atheist. You certainly don't need to go around being destructive of quasi religious icons (Christmas trees aren't even related to Christianity it's a corporate thing).

    Nihilism is just the people who are having a midlife crisis, or are just play acting at depression in order to get attention. It's not a philosophical position. It's just been whiny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    It's more like an offshoot of being raised religious and realizing none of it adds up but it still is a part of your worldview so it's easy to swing from one extreme to the other.

    If god isn't real nothing matters so you can do what you want. Then the consequences of reality hit and you realize that just because god isn't real doesn't mean the consequences aren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Atheists are just the other side of the coin from religion, they KNOW there is no god and nothing you say matters. They can't prove it, but they have absolute faith and will fight you every step of the way because their dogma demands it.

    Agnostics are more the chill ones. They know they can't prove if there is or isn't, they just know religion isn't for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    It sounds like anonny learned a valuable lesson that day

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    That may be the one time when a (gay and fake) parent beating the shit out of their (fake and gay) kid is justified

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    A belief system made me do it. Yea, sure it did bud

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    What's annoying about religious people discussing atheism(which happens every time it's brought up) is that they invariably assume atheists also have religious thinking. Like I must go to atheist church every Sunday to convince myself there's no god. It betrays either a lack of empathy or a lack of honesty.

    Nah, I tended my garden, had some coffee, and going to have some tacos later. I only think about religion when it's brought up, usually when I see a billboard telling me my life is worthless and magic daddy is gonna have me for barbeque after I die.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It betrays a lack of theory of mind, likely indicating they're below a fuzzy sort of threshold below which you don't have the cognitive bandwidth to imagine a perspective beyond your own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Of course there's also the group that are probably intelligent enough to understand that other people think differently to them, but don't care because they are narcissists.

    Which is how you get conservatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    "I have removed the chocolate from the tree. Science doesn't allow chocolate to grow on trees"

    Anon science'd so hard he because a superstitious nutcase (many such cases). This is completely zealot brained.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Oh there's a LOT people (usually from the US) who just replace whater evangelical bs they were socialised on with a New Thing that they run on the same evangelical lines. It's why we have purity politicking everywhere

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    This is basivi when somebody tries to be an atheist in a dogmatic, religious way.

    Being atheist, at least to me, means that you don't care about any of that crap, you just try to be a nice person and let others be

    I'm "militant" enough to wish that all religions would be prohibited as they're nothing but tools for control, but I won't beat someone over the head for believing in fairytales

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Seems like atheist in predominantly religious societies tend to behave a bit different, and I can understand that teenagers would want to make a big deal out of it.

    My parents were atheists, and so have I been my entire life. But we still celebrated Christmas because it was nice and a tradition. We didn't go to church or do any religious stuff during Christmas, but ate a traditional Christmas meal, had a Christmas tree, presents and what not.

    Religion was just not a topic at all, unless religious people did stupid stuff in the name of religion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I'm "militant" enough to wish that all religions would be prohibited as they're nothing but tools for control, but I won't beat someone over the head for believing in fairytales

    I agree. Hate religion, not the practitioner. Unless that particular believer is a dick.

  • source
  • parent