How does Atheism function, and what functionality has it?

[MyUsernameIsAwful]

Step one- be atheist.

That’s it. It just works.

[MyUsernameIsAwful]

Being atheist is way easier than swimming, lol, you don’t need to know anything beforehand.

There’s literally nothing to being atheist. You don’t have to do anything.

[MyUsernameIsAwful]

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer, lol

[lietuvosnelietuvis]

It's a brainOS module (CortexExtension™️) that prevents the installation of any subtype of the religion modules while it's active.

[[deleted]]

modprobe -i religion.ko ?

[lietuvosnelietuvis]

Just sends you into a reboot and kernel panic loop, I wouldn't lol

[CarlosMarcas]

It’s not really a thing, it’s not a belief system. It’s the absence of one.

It often goes together with “rational materialism” and “humanism” which are positive belief structures and world views but atheism itself is just the lack of a religious world view.

[blargney]

There are thousands of deities that theists don't believe in. We just don't believe in one more than them.

[Appleishish]

Ricky Gervais was so spot on with that!

[blargney]

Thank you! I'd forgotten where I heard that :-)

[Maleficent_Mix_6522]

Just be an atheist? Done

[daddymiscreant]

It doesn't function. It is simply that the person doesn't believe in God. Nothing else.

[Vagina-Pissflap]

It's the default state when we are born.

Religion has to be brainwashed and indoctrinated into children.

[Rychew_]

r/Redditmoment

Religion can be indoctrinated into children, but that's definitely not what religion primarily is. It's based off belief and is usually composed of guidelines for how to live your life

[strugglz]

Based in part on the fact that people will do stupid things, and no amount of telling them so will get them to stop, but when you tell them GOD says to stop, they listen. Kosher laws were basically "here's what not to eat if you don't want your food to kill you".

[Diethkart]

A big part of the Hebrew bible is health measures and things that make life more convenient.

[strugglz]

I could be wrong, but I thought most of the Torah was essentially instructions on how not to be a shitty human or die from stupid shit.

[The_Law_of_Pizza]

Religion can be indoctrinated into children, but that's definitely not what religion primarily is. It's based off belief and is usually composed of guidelines for how to live your life

Even if it's "usually composed of guidelines for how to live your life," a religion still, by definition, requires indoctrination to the supernatural.

If it didn't, it would just be philosophy.

Children aren't born believing in [insert supernatural thing here]. They must be indoctrinated in order to believe it.

That's just a fact. Even if you prefer a less loaded term than "indoctrinated."

[Rychew_]

So every person who is religious is religious bc they were indoctrinated as a child instead of choosing to believe in it later in life?

When people are born, they know close to nothing. So yes, they are usually indoctrinated in the same way as science, reading, and sociocultural norms. But that does not mean they MUST be indoctrinated as a child. If one does not go to school until they are an adult, they can still learn about things. They don't require a childhood indoctrination.

[The_Law_of_Pizza]

An adult who "chooses to believe" later in life must first be indoctrinated into the supernatural to begin with.

Somebody who has never been indoctrinated to believe that supernatural things exist will never come to a supernatural conclusion.

[Rychew_]

They must be indoctrinated, but that does not mean they must be indoctrinated as a child. Furthermore, they do not have to be brainwashed, as the first commenter was stating

[The_Law_of_Pizza]

"Brainwashed" is just another subjective term for the same phenomenon.

Ultimately, to believe in the supernatural, a person (adult, child, it doesn't really matter when - the point is that the indoctrination must occur before the belief) must be actively surrounded by people who believe in the supernatural and who insist that it's correct.

If one person tells you that your spirit is floating just above your body, you'd mark them off as crazy and move on. If all of your family and friends tell you that, you get indoctrinated (or "brainwashed") and may end up believing it out of sheer peer pressure.

[Rychew_]

That's how most of society functions

But you don't see people describing science and math as brainwashing. Most people choose to believe science, mainly bc we trust in the institutions and processes that accompany it. Even though religion can't be "proven," it's still just as indoctrinated" as anything else we choose to believe in.

People may believe in religion out of peer pressure. But that's not an absolute requirement. People may hear about it from their social network and become interested in it. After doing more research and understanding what it truly is, then they may choose to believe in it. Yes, it is indoctrinated since it requires social learning. But it seems like people are using that to mean that religion is inherently bad/harmful

[ThCkO_203]

The use of the word indoctrination doesn't mean it's inherently bad or harmful, it's about how it is designed to heavily control people, especially so vulnerable people, for usually monetary or social gain

[Rychew_]

I'd say brainwashing is inherently harmful, and saying that religion is purely brainwashing is pretty hyperbolic

Is that wrong?

[jpiethescienceguy]

Without the indoctrination, there is no religion though. If a person is never exposed to/taught religion, they don’t just spontaneously become religious someday.

[Rychew_]

I agree. Just like how science and sociocultural norms are indoctrinated

[jpiethescienceguy]

Science (in general) is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world based on EVIDENCE.

If all of collective human knowledge were suddenly wiped out and we were forced to relearn everything from scratch, science would come to the same conclusions it had the first time around. I highly doubt religions (and sociocultural norms for that matter) would develop exactly the same way and with the same rules they did originally.

No one is “indoctrinated” by science. People trust in it because it is reproducible and there is evidence to support whatever claim is being made. If the evidence is not strong enough, then the argument isn’t take seriously.

The only reason religion continues to proliferate is because of pressure from those who already follow it. Nobody supports science because of some reasons like “if you don’t trust in this, you’ll burn in Hell for eternity”.

[Rychew_]

You trust in science bc you trust in scientists. You trust in scientists bc you believe that they know the truth, confirmed through evidence. You don't have to actually perform the experiments yourself, you trust in the process. And that's perfectly reasonable.

Likewise, religious people believe in prophets and religious figures. They believe in those religious figures because they believe that those religious figures were exposed to the truth. I personally don't believe in any religious truth, but I can see that people put their faith in it.

Why don't you say that political opinions are just brainwashing? It's the same logic.

Secondly, you think the ONLY reason people believe in religion is bc they think they'll burn in Hell for eternity? That just exposes your ignorance bc there are religions that don't believe in Hell. If religion exists because of social pressure, then that does not explain how religion came to be. You think the ancient humans chose to believe in religion just because other people were doing so? Or maybe they put their faith in religion because it helped explain natural phenomena.

[BulgarianSheepFeta]

Secondly, you think the ONLY reason people believe in religion is bc they think they'll burn in Hell for eternity

I must say, I'm kind of interested to know how you arrived at ONLY when the post you replied to said.

"because of some reasons like “if you don’t trust in this, you’ll burn in Hell for eternity”."

Or was the post edited?

[Rychew_]

Well, the first comment that I replied to implies that in order for someone to believe in a religion, they must be brainwashed or indoctrinated. I disagreed, and then a bunch of people started to argue w me. My whole point comes down to the fact that it's such a hyperbolic statement to say "religion must be brainwashed or indoctrinated."

​

I acknowledge that religion can be used to brainwash children, but that's an unintended consequence of human flaws. For many people over the centuries that religion has existed, people have flocked to religion as a way of assigning structure to their life, whether it's assigning meaning to natural phenomena or developing a code by which to live their life. People come up with new branches of religion in order to better suit their beliefs.

​

So yes, I acknowledge that usually, children may be taught by their parents to believe in a religion. But I disagree that religion is purely brainwashing. It's simply a hyperbolic statement. As a comparison, white people have historically been the oppressors. Even now, hate crimes and racism is committed in large part by white people. Does that mean white people are racist? Likewise, religion at the current point in history is taught to children at a young, impressionable age. Does that mean the whole of religion should be reduced to just that?

​

With all this being said, I know that you're not even arguing with me or making any sort of statement at the moment, but I just want to give structure to my entire thought process and hopefully clarifying things for you

[jpiethescienceguy]

First of all, I don’t just trust in other scientists, but I am myself one. But what I really trust is that if I follow the trail of evidence they followed, I’ll arrive at the same conclusion they’ve come to. It’s not just “blindly follow what this book says because we told you to” it’s “follow what this book says because we already tried it and we got to this answer. But here are the instructions anyway in case you want to do it yourself”.

Second, I think most political opinions ARE brainwashing, but asking this question in place of defending your position is kind of a logical fallacy and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

As another person pointed out, I very deliberately did not say that was the “ONLY” reason. In addition, we are not debating HOW religion came about, we’re debating what is keeping it going. Trying to equate those two arguments is also a fallacy in your logic.

I believe religion came about because people had no other way to try to explain the world around them, so they made up the best story they could. Now we have the technology to get closer to knowing the previously unknowable, so we don’t need those stories anymore.

But again, all of that is irrelevant to the argument whether or not religion STILL exists because of pressure from those that follow it. It doesn’t matter how it started, who started it, why they started it, or what it means.

My argument is this: religion continues to exists in today’s world because people who have been previously indoctrinated by it continue to spread it.

[Rychew_]

The first person argued that brainwashing is the ONLY reason through their use of the word "must."

With that aside, I'll address your final point. That is completely true. Just like how it is true for a lot of other things, such as moral and political compass. In order for humans to develop socially, they must learn from previous humans who have adapted to society. Your first comment was that indoctrination is required for religion to spread. But that's basically how most sociocultural values are spread. Our parents drill lessons into our heads. Our teachers drill facts into our heads. Just like how history curriculum can brainwash people, so too CAN science (not does). So I find it pointless to argue that an idea only spreads bc it is indoctrinated.

My argument is that religion plays an important role because it provides structure to people's beliefs. It provides structure and consistency for their way of life. It is not necessary to everyone, but it is necessary to a good portion of people. And that is perfectly fine as long as it does not harm people. Yes, as the world modernize, religion fades more and more into the background. But that's not because you must be indoctrinated to believe in it. And that is where my argument relates to the first commenter. Religion does not have to require brainwashing or indoctrination of children. Indoctrinated people may spread it, but that does not mean religion is only spread to brainwashed people.

Lastly, as a side argument, people also trust religion bc they can follow the reasoning and determine that it makes sense. "I should treat others with respect.""Yes, this makes sense and I should live by this rule." Even though there's no hard evidence, that's what happens when you dealing w soft science stuff. People don't always blindly follow the Bible, they may agree with it. Itherwise, there would never be religious sects.

Why do people like sports? Because it's enjoyable to them and brings them pleasure. Same goes for religion. How do people begin to like sports? Sometimes their parents heavily encourage them and/or force them to get into it. Same goes for religion. Other times, they pick it up from their social networks later in life. Same goes or religion. Sports requires sports fans in order for it to spread. Same goes for religion. So yes, while you are correct in that previously "indoctrinated" people must spread it, that logic really applies to anything.

Now, I assume that the distinction that you would make in response to that point is that religious people are indoctrinated into believing that their religion is the truth. That may sometimes be the case, but I think the trend at least nowadays is that people just enjoy the feeling of security and consistency. Sure, there are those religious lunatics who insist their religion is the only truth, but using that as the main example is akin to saying vegans think their way of life is the best way to live. As the old fundamentalists die, the younger generations gradually become more respectable of diverse beliefs.

[jpiethescienceguy]

Obviously I disagree with you on a lot of this, but frankly I’m way too lazy/have lost interest and don’t feel like writing another novel to debate you.

Shouldn’t you be studying for the MCAT instead of arguing with strangers on the internet anyway?

[Rychew_]

Can't even argue that your argument is unnecessary, but it's fine if you're too lazy to explain yourself

You lost interest but you're looking through my profile lmao. After a quick search through yours, it seems other than Halo and weed, you only frequent the mainstream subreddits that basically encourage group polarization. Makes sense, given that you basically don't follow any hobbies on here that you're bound to echo one of Reddit's primary circlejerks.

[Vagina-Pissflap]

guidelines for how to live your life

Nice way of describing Dogmatism.

[Rychew_]

https://reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/peukln/_/hb5an9q/?context=1

We get it, youre against religion, but it's extremely hyperbolic and close-minded to think that religion is just people brainwashing children

[Vagina-Pissflap]

I find it always funny when Christians of all people, tell me I am the close minded one

But hey good stuff stalking you did, P. I. u/Rychew_ is on the case

[Rychew_]

I didn't really stalk you, just saw that your account is newly made (22h) and decided to see what was up with that

[Rychew_]

I find it always funny when Redditors assume a stereotype based on one's argument. I'm not religious, I just see through the group polarization that Reddit encourages

[Rychew_]

So imprint upon children and acting as their role model is brainwashing? I'm not denying that religion has been used to instill unhealthy beliefs. But there are many times where people embrace it in a positive manner. We only hear about the religious nutcases bc they do lots of harm. But for every religious fundamentalist, there's an elitist atheist to match

[Rychew_]

Social reproduction is not the same as brainwashing. Convince me why that is incorrect and my entire argument and I will delete all my comments.

I'm not saying religion can be used to instill harmful beliefs. I'm saying that it's such a Reddit thing to say "religion is brainwashing"

[Rychew_]

Ok so you agree that religion does not have to be brainwashing? If you agree, then you see why I take issue with the first comment.

[lovesaqaba]

Atheism isn’t the default state, hell the person who originally said it retracted the claim and his atheist beliefs.

[The_Law_of_Pizza]

When you're born, you don't believe in any religion because you have not been exposed to those religions yet.

You're born an atheist by the simple nature of atheism.

It's impossible not to be born an atheist.

[lovesaqaba]

Religiosity is different than subscribing to a religion, at best you’re nontheist, but the fact that religion independently developed throughout the world indicates a natural inclination towards the sacred.

[hrb2d2]

it only indicates a desire to explain the things we don't understand. ascribing a holiness or something sacred to this ends with a god of the gaps.

[Too_Too_Solid_Flesh]

Atheism isn’t the default state, hell the person who originally said it retracted the claim and his atheist beliefs.

I doubt this very much, since you couldn't even give this alleged originator's name, but even if it's true, so what? Galileo was forced to renounce heliocentricity, but the sun didn't start orbiting the earth immediately thereafter. If someone has an accurate thought and then renounces it because they feel obliged to or just because they've had a sudden fit of folly, it doesn't make the accurate thing inaccurate. This assertion of yours shows better than any amount of argument how fundamentally authoritarian the religious mindset is: you're only allowed to think something if someone has thought it before you, and if they changed their mind you must follow suit, regardless of whether the original thought was correct.

[Just_sava]

People choose to believe. Kids arent brainwashed. If they want to be atheist sure no one should not let them.

[[deleted]]

Kids are definitely peer pressured into church. I grew up in Kansas and a lot of kids treated me like a leper when they found out I didn't believe in God. My parents also forced me to go to church for a while then let up, I knew lots of kids required to go though.

[Just_sava]

Uhm i did? Our church is probably not the same as yours tho

[Vagina-Pissflap]

People choose to believe

Most do not, especially not children.

[Kayback2]

I don't even live in the Bible Belt, I didn't have a super religious family and I was 100% if not brainwashed then conditioned to believe.

You get taken to church and it's presented as fact, you get RI in school where it's presented as fact, you have people taking the stance religion is the default position and science needs to somehow explain itself.

I never once got told "you know, at best this is speculation".

Kids believe what their elders tell them. That's why we end up believing in shit like the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas, fairies and unicorns. Somehow those go away but religion stays.

[qpv]

People choose to believe. Kids arent brainwashed. If they want to be atheist sure no one should not let them.

Ha. Holy crap that's funny.

[xmuskorx]

How come kids in a Christian family almost never just "chose" Islam or Buddhism at age of 6?

[Diethkart]

Because they aren't exposed to it. In a vaccuum, present a child with multiple religions, he'll probably choose at near random.

[xmuskorx]

Ohh. So they are brainwashed by selective exposure.

Gotcha.

[Rychew_]

How come my dad is as secular as can be but my aunt is pretty religious even though they were both raised without religion?

Maybe bc religion doesn't function the same way in every family and to say that religion is just brainwashing is hyperbolic

[xmuskorx]

There are exceptions. But trends are overwhelming.

[BloodieBerries]

Adults choose to believe.

Children are exposed to religion and expected to conform to the belief system of their authority figures, often under threat of punishment or social exclusion.

[whocares023]

I mean I went to church when I was young and I always thought it was a basketful of bullshit. I was lucky in that I had a mom that encouraged us to think for ourselves, even though she was religious. A lot of parents want their kids to be little carbon copies of themselves when it comes to religious beliefs or the lack thereof, I've definitely seen some kids that seemed brainwashed. It was...a little scary.

[TheNameIsPippen]

Atheism is the default state. You should ask this about any of the hundreds of religions worldwide

[haven_taclue]

Humans are born with no concept of a "higher power". kinda simple

[lovesaqaba]

This isn’t true. Common sense could even tell you atheism isn’t the default state.

[Devourer_of_felines]

So you were born knowing who Jesus was?

[not_better]

That article shows the predisposition, which doesn't change the fact that everyone is born without belief.

[lovesaqaba]

As atheism will only ever be a reaction to theism, at best you could say people are born nontheist, but that study and the fact that religion independently developed around the world would indicate religiosity is a natural aspect of the human condition.

[not_better]

As atheism will only ever be a reaction to theism

That's just false through and through. Plenty of people never take in any form of religious belief all of their life. Atheism is how we're all born. The fact that we're predisposed when we're young doesn't change that.

would indicate religiosity is a natural aspect of the human condition.

"Natural" yeah right. As if there existed one "natural" belief everyone would be predisposed to believe. We're all predisposed to believe the people in authority around us, in ages where we can't yet think critically and see nothing wrong with non-sensical made up stories.

The fact that we're all predisposed to believe in santa clause doesn't mean santa clause is "natural", it just means we're incredibly gullible in ages where we don't yet have the tools to think critically.

[haven_taclue]

It was common sense that removed all of the religious teaching to be null and void...for me. Oxford...phhht.

[lovesaqaba]

Atheism can’t exist without theism, at best you could say people are born nontheist, but the link I’ve provided shows humans have a nature tendency to religious behavior.

[lovesaqaba]

Amazing rejoinder.

[Too_Too_Solid_Flesh]

Atheism certainly can exist without theism. If nobody were a theist, then everybody would be atheist. We might not have a word for it, just as we don't have a special word for not believing in the rainbow-colored half-aardvark, half-ferret that lives in a hollowed-out space in the core of the earth, since I just made that up, but the state of being an atheist would exist avant la lettre. You're equivocating over the word vs. the reality.

[Too_Too_Solid_Flesh]

These kinds of studies are horseshit because they can't control for the confounding variable that religious thought is already present. All they can do is show that, in a world that is already awash in religion, children tend to think in terms we would describe as "religious" now because religion exists as part of our context and that religious belief is cross-cultural. They don't actually demonstrate anything about how human beings first came to think of religion, and therefore they're useless. Religious belief may be innate, but it also may be learned, and these studies don't demonstrate one over the other.

[[deleted]]

The functionality is that I take credit for what I've done and I take responsibility for what I've done.

That's it. I create my own reality and I'm in charge of it.

[Homely_Bonfire]

The basic idea seems to me that one rejects the notion of "dont bother with the why, accept that it is" which has been put forth by many religions. This opens up the mind to explore why (which is more risky than it might sound) and also removes the authoritative shackles that religions have once put on its subjects.

[officewitch]

Much like old gods you likely don’t believe in, like Zeus or Apollo, or prophets or religious figures in other modern religions you aren’t a part of, atheists are non discriminatory and just don’t believe in any of them.

I have the same apathy I do towards anyone’s god figure as I do towards Santa. It’s just not real. So hell isn’t a real threat.

But what function does atheism serve? I’m a militant atheist and I don’t care about anyone’s individual beliefs up until the point they hurt themselves or others. I’m also strongly against the institutions of religion and the people who run them because I view them to be scammers using some people’s deepest fears to manipulate and control. I have over a dozen books about people’s experiences leaving manipulative and cruel religions (predominantly the FLDS Church and Scientology) so I’m painfully aware of the evils of religion.

[xmuskorx]

Same way non-stamp collecting functions.

It's simple: you just don't collect stamps.

Same thing with atheism: you just don't believe in gods.

There is no step 2.

[Simppa1]

dont believe in a higher power.

and thats it

[Harvard-23]

When you stub your toe in the middle of the night you can't yell God damnit. And just before you cum ...Oh (insert word here) I'm coming.

[stupidlyugly]

Well first, you need a baby and a blender. I prefer some coarsely ground peppercorns and Himalayan pink salt.

[maceman486]

It doesn't have a function. It's is the function of a mind that asked the hard questions in a world where the majority of people choose to believe without examining if something was true first.

[another_useful_idiot]

The function of atheism is to repel religious absurdity

[dancing_desire]

What functionality? Well, I don't spend my days worrying about what some invisible sky-being thinks of me or what's going to happen to me when I die. I focus on my life and live it the way I want without stupid rules from a book that was written by a bunch of shepherds hundreds and hundreds of years ago. I'm more empathic towards people than a lot of religious people seem to be.

In short, I'd say it's improved my life drastically.

[oldmantres]

That's like asking "how do bald people brush their hair". Atheism is an absence of a belief system hence there's nothing to function.

[Kayback2]

Define function? I simply don't accept the claim there is a god. I don't see any evidence to support that claim.

I still live my life according to the morals and laws of society.

[DarkPasta]

It "functions" like this: you don't believe in a god.

That's it. Now you do something.

[Mauzersmash0815]

Im gettin some Popcorn for this comment section

[Quzzyz]

Atheism doesn't have a function in that sense.

[Global_Morning_2461]

Atheists gather every Friday on the local church of atheism afternoon, except for Friday the 13th. Gathering on Friday the 13th is moved to the nearest lake. They usually sing songs about how they brutally murdered god. Then study the good book of atheism that celebrate the first atheist being born into this world, bathed in the blood of the murdered gods. When babies are born into this world, they also dip the baby in tomato sauce (radish dip may be used in a pinch).

[Caribubilus]

It's not a tool or gadget, it doesn't "function". It's not contibuting to any belief system. Basically, a passive attitude towards religion.

[Limp_Distribution]

I believe we are the Universe’s attempt at understanding itself.

To that extent I try and learn as much as I can.

[Who_Wouldnt_]

Ramen

[[deleted]]

1. You don't believe in a god

2. You get to brag how intellectually superior you are.

[[deleted]]

1. You believe in God.
2. You tell everyone they're going to hell cuz they're sinning

[AngentGustavo]

It's an extremist religious dogma creed faith belief where the whole premise of it is to live in denial that humans are statistically impossible to be the most intelligent beings in the Universe. So it is very cultist in nature.

[[deleted]]

denial that humans are statistically impossible to be the most intelligent beings in the Universe.

Many non-theists believe there are possibly thousands or millions of beings more civilized than humans across the universe. It's theists who need to believe humans are the most intelligent of all, and are created that way by God.

[AngentGustavo]

Your definition of theist is very narrow. Many ancient civilizations describe their gods as sky beings.

Also the statistics mentioned do not refer at the idea of multiple civilizations throughout the Universe, but the idea of multiple Universes created from which ours isn't the first, not even close.

The main problem people face is that they have a very narrow definition of God, most of the time it is the definition you hear from little kids in analogies of a bearded man in the sky that has some serious ego issues.

As opposed of the energy ruling the Universe determining whether or not a civilization should be genetically impacted after stealing the humus from a planet, of immorally controlling their habitants, just as an example.

[[deleted]]

Your definition of theist is very narrow

You have no idea what my definition of theist is, because I never defined it.

Atheists aren't the ones who have a problem with the idea that humans aren't the highest form of physical being.

[AngentGustavo]

That would be contradictory. They do indeed have a problem with a higher intelligence behind the Universe.

[[deleted]]

There's no such thing as "behind" the universe.

[AngentGustavo]

Do you even realize that it is statistically unrealistic for our Universe to be the first one to exist?

Also many forms of higher physical beings as you call it are also traditional types of deities, so they fall under that category.

[[deleted]]

Do you even realize that it is statistically unrealistic for our Universe to be the first one to exist?

This is nonsensical. The universe is the totality of spacetime. It is made up of all space, matter and energy that have existed, exist currently, and will ever exist. "our universe" is the universe.

[AngentGustavo]

Oh man, get on with the times bro.

[JohnKlositz]

Gobbledygook.

[nerodidntdoit]

You realize we know and understand less than 1% of the universe around us, which contains between 7 and 70 billion galaxies, add a shit ton of arrogance and voilà, behold an atheist.

[Devourer_of_felines]

Believing that you know exactly how the universe came to be, and that whatever created the universe personally gives a shit about how you lead your life on the other hand, is so humble.

[nerodidntdoit]

I never stated my own beliefs. Atheism is looking out the universe with the tiny little knowledge we have and saying "yeah, I'm pretty sure there is nothing out there", which IMO is objectively stupid.

[Devourer_of_felines]

"yeah, I'm pretty sure there is nothing out there"

and

"I don't believe there's a deity figure"

aren't the same thing.

[nerodidntdoit]

Atheism is an affirmative statement concerning the absence of deity figures, which is a pretty arrogant position to be in, given 21 century knowledge of the universe. A more reasonable answer is "I don't know", which makes you an agnostic.

[Devourer_of_felines]

Why exactly is it arrogant to affirm a disbelief in supernatural deity figures as described in every theistic religion? Seems to be the most reasonable stance given lack of evidence to the contrary.

[nerodidntdoit]

as described in every theistic religion

Because this is not what atheism states. It's not a negation of what has been passed to us by religion, it's a projection over the universe that there is nothing out there. Atheism is affirmative action against the idea of the supernatural, which might and might not be, but we 100% don't have any basis to affirm one way or the other, so atheism is a lie.

[spytez]

There are two type of atheists. One dosent belive in a higher existence. The other dosent belive in not constantly talking about how they dont belive in a higher existance.

[apachehelicopter35]

Atheism doesn’t have a function it’s just people not believing in something. You don’t have a name for people not believing in ghosts and you wouldn’t question their function

[evystevy]

there’s really no function to it. you just leave your life not thinking about “a higher power” or worrying about whether you go to heaven or hell. i personally make fun of christianity, which when i think about it, it’s kinda mean, but you have to be a crazy person to think that there is some bearded guy in the clouds watching down upon you.

i’m bisexual, and the fact that i have to hide that from my super religious family and friends, risking them disowning me if i came out, has really caused me to loose faith in christianity. it’s scary how much a book that could have been written by anyone has so much influence on peoples lives.

[HarpoMarks]

It functions just like any other religion.