I am not an atheist, I genuinely believe that God exists and he is evil, like a toddler who fries little ants with a lens.
Anti-theism?
No, that’s being opposed to the belief in god or gods.
The term you’re looking for is Evilgodism
Feeble mindedness ?
Gottem! /s
That’s just religion
Can I interest you in Sithrak, the god who hates you?
Man this is fantastic. Can a gentleman pass the sauce?
Oglaf.com, beware, boobs and butts abound, and dongs too
I typed in the url and… yeah, that was A LOT of boobs and butts.
Came back here to see that I mistyped the url. Doubling the “O” results in many boobs and butts.
It says right on entry that it started as an attempt at porn. It has all the things.
The best part is that he’s actually a chill guy.
So just like normal religion but honest?
Misotheism.
Miso as in misogyny, misandry, etc. Not as in the delicious fermented paste that makes a lovely soup.
Its ‘god(s) exist(s) and can absolutely go fuck itself/themselves, possibly for the following reasons…’
Somewhat pedantically speaking, the belief that an evil god exists (exclusively or otherwise) is dystheism. Misotheism is the hatred of a god or gods. Dystheism implies misotheism, but they’re not exactly the same.
Valid. Though misotheism at least implies the person being identified as such thinks god(s) (is/are) morally fuckex
I worship the lovely soup.
All hail!
Tofu
Bean paste
Tofu is just cheese but like if you took away everything that’s nice about cheese
And cheese is just tofu with animal abuse.
More flavorful, doesn’t crisp as well, can’t really be structural.
As should we all.
The philosophers religion.
This is definitely some shit Nietzsche would crack up high as fuck on opium. Hell im pretty sure he did.
also, if we’re going by traditional religious figures. Satanism. Though modern satanism is very different. I would argue that this is more accurately described as “christian satanism” or “christo-satanism”
deleted by creator
This is definitely some shit Nietzsche would crack up high as fuck on opium. Hell im pretty sure he did
He said the opposite and very clearly mourns the decline in religion throughout his works. You should probably read the material before making wacko statements like this.
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” -Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche is a character. Man has done a lot of things in his life. You can basically interpret everything he said in numerous ways. I was mostly pointing out that Nietzsche was probably the most apt example given this scenario. op literally said “like a toddler who fries little ants with a lens”
Anyway, i found the philosopher in the comments, my point was made.
I read his material for a class in high school over 10 years ago. His material is hardly up to interpretation, as are most philosophical works, as he had very specific ideas about the world. That argument ends up becoming a slippery slope to “anything can be misconstrued.” And if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean writers don’t have a specific intent behind their words. The main point is that Nietzsche was a religious man and anti-nihilist which a lot of people seem to conveniently gloss over as a result of not actually reading anything he’s said.
dude even the fucking nazis used nietzsches shit. To argue that it “CANNOT” be misconstrued is probably one of the fucking statements of all time.
You suggested them to read Nietzsche and from it you got he mourns the decline of religion through all of his works? Maybe you should also get a re-read.
The decline of religion is stated as a fact, killed by men’s rationality and evolution. As any evolution it has opportunities and risks, in this case the bigger risk is the loss of morality.
But the only thing he clearly advocates for is overcoming religion and God because they are not needed anymore. The new Man should make its own meaning and rules.
It’s the whole concept of the übermensch which is the single central point of his all system.
The quote is not supposed to be his opinion (not directly at least), it’s a character in a story.
It’s like taking the stance of Cephalus in the Plato’s Republic and say it’s Plato’s opinion, while it’s clearly just a tool to let Socrates speak.
The decline of religion is stated as a fact
And nowhere was that said that wasn’t the case. Reading comprehension isn’t that hard.
Stated as a fact with no emotion or judgment related to it. So that excludes mourning for it, which was the point I was making in my reply which was more than clear enough.
And I’m sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic how you’re the one saying reading comprehension isn’t that hard after failing to understand both Nietzsche and my comment.
That’s it?
In Christian Satanism is Jesus evil?
In Christian Satanism the Devil exists and is being worshipped. This is “classical” or “theist” Satanism where there is a belief in the existence of Satan.
Contrast that with modern atheist Satanism, where the Devil is merely a psychological symbol of rebellion, independence and freedom that serves to trigger theists while also being a representation of revolting against christan authoritarianism and, through the exploitation of rules stemming from theist-political decisionmaking, as a counter to the blatantly unconstitutional abuse of religious freedom laws for the benefit of a single religion.
You’re mixing things up. Satanism never believed in literal Satan, that’d be Satan’s /Devil’s Worshippers, a completely different group of people. “Satanism” was the word used by the ignorant western (mostly US) media during the “Satanic panic” during the '80s-'90s, and it stuck. The Satanic Bible, to which your “modern atheist Satanism” refers to, was written in '69. Nothing to do with literal Satan.
Theistic Satanism, otherwise referred to as religious Satanism, spiritual Satanism, or traditional Satanism,[2] is an umbrella term for religious groups that consider Satan, the Devil, to objectively exist as a deity, supernatural entity, or spiritual being worthy of worship or reverence, whom individuals may contact and convene with, in contrast to the atheistic archetype, metaphor, or symbol found in LaVeyan Satanism.
The Satanic Bible is LaVeyan Satanism and as a product of the 20th century very much more modern than the “traditional Satanism” of de Sade and Huysman in the 19th century.
LaVeyan Satanism is still much more on the “spiritual” side of things than, for example the explicitly atheistic, sceptic and rational Satanic Temple, but both fall under the umbrella of the more modern, non-theistic understanding of Satanism. While a more historical form definetly existed, even if it wasn’t widely practiced.
Holy hell, I learned something today. Might be a matter of a language barrier, since in my native language the word “Satanism” by definition refers to LaVeyan Satanism, and there’s a distinct word for Satan’s/Devil’s worshippers. No idea how that happened.
“Christian Satanism” isn’t a thing
i suppose the concept would be that from the view of christianity, that jesus would be the same, and that satanists would worship the devil, as depicted in christianity.
I disagree, the post doesn’t ask if there is a religion where there is a god who is good, with a fallen angel who is evil. Neither are they asking for one where you pray to the evil fallen angel who opposes a good principal god. They’re asking for one where the principal god is evil.
I think, more specifically they’re asking for the name to a belief system in which we observe the actions of the Abrahamic god and judge it to be evil.
well no see you misunderstand, this is satanism from the view of classical christianity (i’m definitely using this term wrong, i just think it’s funny lol, don’t read into it). I.E. satan is “an evil god” which even through classical christianity, is not accurate. But i would really recommend you see what certain christians think of satanism lol.
They lack the mental capacity to properly formulate any other religion, so they just replace jesus/god with satan/devil and call it a day at it’s simplest.
I don’t think Christianity ever saw Satan as a god, though. Angels are creatures like humans except created to serve.
no, they don’t, but like i said, this is what they think satanism is to them.
It’s not about the fundamentals of religion, it’s about how they perceive what they believe to be the “anti religion” think about it. If you’re a christian, and you’ve told your entire life that god is good, and satan is evil, and that christianity is about christ and about what he does. When presented with the concept of satanism, doesn’t it seem apt that it would essentially be christianity, but loosely applied to what christianities concept of satan is?
It’s less about how religion works, and more about a perverted concept of religion.
deleted by creator
No, antitheists oppose belief in deities.
deleted by creator
Though anti-theist is an umbrella term that includes opposition to religion, not just belief in god
Absolutely, i just went for the relevant simple point that antitheists don’t believe in any god, regardless if good or evil.
There is no god, but if there was one, the only logical conclusion is that he’s evil. So whatever you call it, your religion is the most sane one I’ve ever heard about
the only logical conclusion is that he’s evil
If you’re talking about the Abrahamic one, yes. Others could be good or neutral depending on their claimed characteristics.
Looking at the pain and suffering in the world, any god that is not only capable of stopping that, but is by definition the one that made things this way, the only logical conclusion is he’s evil, Abrahamic or otherwise
Yes, but a less powerful god may not be.
Fair enough
Fellow Sapiens enjoyer
I think it’s a common argument that’s been made by Hitchens and Steven Fry too, but you’re right 😁
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Shit, now there’s a religion I could get behind!
Yes. It’s Dystheism.
Dystheism
TIL
Also noteworthy is misotheism. Seems OP counts as both.
“Dystheism (from Ancient Greek: δυσ-, romanized: dus-, lit. ‘bad’ and θεός theos “god”) is the belief that a god is not wholly good and can even be considered evil, or one and the same with Satan.”
Misothiest is the term I heard.
Yet the first words there say
Misotheism is the “hatred of God”
so that’s a different thing.
How about Divine Misanthropy?
Isn’t the god supposed to define what good and evil even is, and wouldn’t therefore any monotheistic god be “good” by definition?!
Neither of those are necessarily true. For an Abrahamic god, sure, but one can certainly conceive of a god that doesn’t define good and evil, and a god that defines good and evil and doesn’t define itself as good.
I don’t think I would even call a being like that “god”, more like “evil spirit” or something.
These things aren’t well-defined, so you’re certainly welcome to, but I think most people would consider an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe to be a god and not a spirit.
That’s only one (narrow) definition of a god.
To take a well known example, is Loki “good”?
It’s the definition monotheism employs though, and Loki is from a polytheistic pantheon.
All good, The comment I replied to has been edited to specify monotheism after I wrote my reply.
Yea sorry for that, I had the same thought as you right after I posted my comment.
There is no reason to believe that a higher power cares about the concepts of good and evil to begin with. Taking a walk through the woods seems like a morally neutral activity, but all of the insects you crush along the way might view you as evil for what you do to them.
Socrates answered this. If morality is objective or has an objective basis then it is necessarily independent from any God or god’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Edit to add: If you’re interested in the concept of an evil God in the context of Christian beliefs I recommend reading “Answer to Job” by Carl Jung. He doesn’t exactly make the Christian God evil but ascribes moral failings to God and frames Jesus as the redemption of God instead of the redemption of man.
That’s what people say, but in practice people have their own ideas and just project them on to god.
Somewhat off-topic, but there’s this line of thought, which multiple Christian thinkers have come up with throughout the centuries, called the Ontological Argument. It basically tries to prove the existence of the Christian God with only pure logic, no axioms involved.
Proofs without axioms don’t exist elsewhere, so take the following with a massive grain of salt, but basically it goes:
God is a maximally good being. Existence of a maximally good being is itself good. Therefore, God must exist.
Aside from this being circular reasoning, it also involves a massive axiom: The existence and definition of good vs. bad.
But with your point, we can advance the argument even further:
Defining what’s good is good.
That way, we get twice the circular reasoning, but no axioms anymore. 🙃
deleted by creator
Philosophy needs to be logical, in my opinion. Otherwise, you’re just making up bullshit with no connection to reality.
Which, yeah, not wanting to have any axioms, does lead to that. It’s just reasoning around in a circle, but there’s no logical path to get into that circle.
Adam and Eve were canonically cast from heaven for being able to define good and evil.
I mean, sure, but then we just need to give a slightly different wonk to our circular argument:
As a maximally good being, only you know what's good, so defining what's good is in itself a good deed.But yeah, obviously this is just nonsense. I just find it hilarious, how much argumentation you can layer on top of itself, without actually providing a logical statement.
I call it, god, the Tyrant.
I am unimportant. This world is primed for the great devourer.
https://ninjago.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Devourer
The Great Devourer will consume us all! Move forth to the Lost City of Ouroboros!
The star children come to make us whole.
All hail zorp the surveyor
The real question is why do you feel so angry and upset about your life? I would start focusing on the good things not just the bad ones.
That’s completely irrelevant. You can be working hard towards something and achieve it while there is someone always trying to sabotage you. I am asking about the saboteur
Most likely the saboteur doesn’t exist and you’re having bias reviewing your life.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it’s all hypothetical. It’s like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
I have changed my mind about how much we should bet on the fucker actually existing. The dude who sent the Carl Sagan video… You da mvp
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator.
I said “most likely”. If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
What I mean is that we don’t have any data to even comment on the likelihood. You can’t say most likely.
And in that situation, the safest bet is to say no. See: the invisible dragon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Apply your comment to fairies. Do you arrive to the same conclusion? If not, why?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/KNzlfYJaaCg?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Persepctive is extremely relevant. For example if you live under a government and things are going great for you, you will more likely think the government is good than someone that is in poverty and under attack by the government.
What in your life is not going so great that you are unhappy? Writing someone might actually help.
Your adding the baseless implication that there is something wrong in their life. I’m not a 10 year old being murdered by Israels missles, or a Ukrainian forced to go to war, or a toddler dying of leukemia, but those things exist in this world. Whether they affect me or not they exist, hence ur making the assumption this is a complaint on their own life.
I am making that assumption and it is probably accurate. I could be wrong but probably not, happy people dont tend to rail against how terrible life is.
“I am making assumptions”
Full stop, you did it. You do not know a single thing about this person but believe ur assumptions to be truth based on personal experience, such that now you believe it’s ok for you to make public accusations about their mental health, that is ignorant, you are a clown.
We make assumptions every hour of everyday, and I didnt say anything about his mental health, I just know they are probably very unhappy and have lived a life that needs changed.
What a wild assumption to make based off someone seeing all the evil in the world and the garbage religious people justify, and thinking they are angry about their life.
Sure, but that is if they are focusing on only the bad things and ignoring the good things. Someone that is wildly happy with their life is not thinking how life is so terrible and evil.
Someone that is wildly happy with their life is not thinking how life is so terrible and evil.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
You can be happy and recognize that life is also terrible and evil.
Sure, but people that are wildly happy is unlikely to see everything as evil.
Are you trying to advocate for bliss in ignorance?
Please tell me you’re joking?
The whole post is a matter of opinion. Are you claiming people with shitty lives will just as likely to have the OPs opinion of someone living a good life?
The post isn’t a matter of opinion. He didn’t ask whether his view is correct or true, he asked what its academic name was. He is seeking a specific answer. You’re the one injecting opinion into a conversation that didn’t ask for any.
If I asked what the name of the god of the Hindu religion was, it wouldn’t be an open invitation to begin debating the merits of said religion. And even if u decided that it was, it sure as hell isn’t were you get asked a simple question like “are u advocating for ignorant bliss”, and then say “well this whole post is a matter of opinion” which is both complete bullshit as I’ve now shown, and also a cowards move, because you are pivoting the conversation as a means to not answer a simple question since you can tell you’ve lost the argument.
You might consider reflecting on your own viewpoints, because if they cant stand up to simple questions about their own merits, then maybe you should get a new viewpoint, or at a minimum you stop spreading them on the internet to people who didn’t ask.
Answer my question.
Yes. Questioning things is sign of intelligence not quality of life.
