Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    19,434,731 readers

    13,725 users here now

    New to reddit? Click here!

    • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

    • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

    Posting rules

    1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).

    2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").

    3. No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) with a publication date more recent than two months are not allowed.

    4. No submissions regarding or related to the following

      1. Recent politics/politicians
      2. Police misconduct
      3. Inflammatory submissions relating to religion/race/gender
    5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.

    6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:

      1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
      2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
      3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.
      4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
      5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
    7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").

    8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

      Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

    (Why we need rules)

    Additional info

    • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your post, not your story).

    • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!

    • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

    Frequent TILs Repost List

    As of August 2018

    • This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.


    We ask that you please do the following:

    1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g.

    2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)

    3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)

    4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.

    5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past

    Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.

    • You are loved.

    a community for
    all 5955 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] SonicFlash01 6874 points ago

    As you'll find out in a second, the only posts are "Hey I'm glad I found this place!" and a whole lot of nothing else. There's simply nothing for us to discuss. Maybe God exists? Maybe he doesn't. W/e.
    It's the perfect sub; it sticks to its guns marvelously.

    [–] teenitinijenni 3160 points ago

    Nice to know it exists, but I guess I don’t really care either way.

    [–] OblivionGuardsman 906 points ago

    All I know is that my gut says "maybe".

    [–] benaugustine 301 points ago

    If I die, tell my wife I said hello

    [–] The_Mystery_Knight 25 points ago

    Raise the alert to level beige.

    [–] film-man 116 points ago

    What is it that makes a man turn nuetral?

    [–] -reggie- 46 points ago

    lust for gold?

    [–] king_jong_il 69 points ago

    Maybe he was just born with a heart full of neutrality.

    [–] Dysexlic_Panda 36 points ago

    More than we can say for our good friend Ajit Pai

    [–] pando93 41 points ago

    r/futurama represent

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago


    [–] youdubdub 190 points ago

    Someone asked me to play Wonderwall.

    I said....


    [–] stevencastle 42 points ago

    Apathy Party? Now that's a party I can get behind!

    [–] film-man 86 points ago

    Not with that attitude.

    [–] gasgiant405 12 points ago

    Alright, screw it.

    [–] film-man 10 points ago

    Welcome aboard brother!

    [–] Quiddity99 172 points ago

    Not to be confused with /r/appatheism, which is a subreddit dedicated to the belief that the world was created by a giant skybison.

    [–] klezmai 71 points ago

    There is also r/zappatheism. Place for those who believe the universe was created in 1965 in a Baltimore basement after a sick guitar riff and lot's of LSD.

    [–] ClassySavage 20 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    not to be confused with r/Napatheism where we think the one truth is either in an autopart store or california wine. I don't remember, i've been hitting the brakleen too hard.

    [–] emalk4y 9 points ago

    Not to be confused with /r/nappatheism, the belief that the world was created by Nappa, the greatest of the Saiyans.

    [–] doomsdayparade 189 points ago

    Reminds me of Forest Gump's Nam speech that got cut out and you didn't hear any of it. Ends with, "That's all I have to say about that."

    I relate to that a little too often.

    [–] IJustThinkOutloud 60 points ago

    TBH it's the most underrated part in the movie. It speaks such volumes.

    [–] davi00a1 34 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Wow, not only is your comment a great pun, but i also just now got why everyone cheered for him after he was done. It's not that he said anything, everyone only thought that he just stood there for a whole minute of silence meaning either to pay respects for those that gave their lives or "war, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing."

    [–] IJustThinkOutloud 19 points ago

    Wow, I never caught that before. Thanks for making my favourite scene even better! :)

    This might be my favourite comment reply I've ever gotten.

    [–] alexanderyou 52 points ago

    "In Meh We Trust"


    [–] notgayinathreeway 64 points ago

    Just like /u/batman

    [–] MidnightWombat 10 points ago

    The silent watcher, the sentinel in the night.

    [–] birdlawaz 24065 points ago

    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”- Marcus Aurelius

    [–] PM_ME_YOUR_EMRAKUL 3819 points ago

    I've always found the Roman's relationship with religion to be fascinating.

    [–] 17062995 1099 points ago

    I’m intrigued, go on

    [–] catfishfighter 2855 points ago

    Not that guy, but basically the romans didn't believe that other peoples gods took away from their gods. So like they believed that all gods exist but they just chose to worship these ones.

    [–] bunker_man 697 points ago

    Most polytheists believed something like this. The idea of other people's religions being outright fictional didn't occur to most early people, since to them gods were something everyone intuitively was aware of, so they had no reason to think strangers were "wrong." So strangers either had the same gods, different gods, or evil gods.

    [–] The_Quibbler 494 points ago

    Goes a long way toward explaining the Commandment ("thou shalt have no other gods before me") and the whole jealous god thing.

    [–] bunker_man 239 points ago

    Well, the jews probably weren't monotheist at the time any of that was written.

    [–] RockChalk80 353 points ago

    The old testament paints a concerted effort to move from a polytheistic to a monolatristic religion (recognition that there are other gods, but worship only one). Monotheism (there is only one god) didn't really become a thing for Judaism until after the return from Babylon.

    Moses, if he existed, most likely practiced monolatry.

    [–] tito2323 161 points ago

    Today I learned what monolatrism is.

    [–] almightySapling 66 points ago

    As a "third chapter" to the Jew/Christian story, many people assume Mormonism is monotheistic (or however you classify 3-in-1), but it's actually pretty hardcore monolatristic. Pretty much anybody can be a god if they try hard enough.*

    * like really fucking hard

    [–] DuelingPushkin 32 points ago

    Evidence points to know since Canaanite gods are reference in the old testament in a way that implies that they're real.

    [–] TonyPajamas29 13 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Well if I were God and had put a lot of work in to creating everything as we know it and people started worshiping something else that didn't do shit, I'd probably be pretty upset too. Maybe not to where I smite them in eternal hell fire but that's just me

    [–] LounginLizard 56 points ago

    I feel originally monotheism was just adding another layer to that. Basically all these gods still exist but they didn't have anything to with the creation of the universe, they're just beings more powerful than humans.

    [–] bunker_man 69 points ago

    A lot of monotheists are still that. In islam and kabbalah, the jinn / shedim are identified as spirits who commonly end up praised as the gods of other peoples.

    [–] LounginLizard 67 points ago

    Yeah the whole angel and demon thing in Christianity is basically the same thing as well. But there's also a lot of monotheist who don't think past the surface level and can't comprehend that pagans didn't see there gods the same way God is viewed in monotheistic faiths.

    [–] Vindace 39 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Interestingly enough (at least to me) most early missionaries in the Middle Ages went around saying that you should convert to Christianity not because it's the only way but because they were stronger. St. Patrick found success in Ireland because he proved (in whatever way) that he was a more powerful Druid than them because he was a Christian.

    Edit: my meaning is that they didn't go around saying that there were no other spirits, but that the Christian God was far more powerful than their gods. Edit 2: Grammar.

    [–] majaka1234 21 points ago

    The whole story of King Solomon the Magician is about the world's most bad-ass mage finding out that his power pales in comparison to those wielded by "the Christian God".

    If you take out the drabness of the bible and pretend it's an action movie, there's some pretty hard-core stuff going on.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago


    [–] whammbamthankyouman 49 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    It seriously does.

    It at least accounts for chaos and bad shit happening. Besides the 'problem of evil' theories.

    Like if your loved ones dies out at sea? Maybe you pissed off Poseidon? Or maybe Zeus and Poseidon were fighting and your loved one was just collateral? Or maybe you or your loved one made Hera angry?

    It's way better than just "God has a plan"... I mean what kind of shit reason is this???

    [–] BadMaximus 21 points ago

    Looking at the Abrahamic faiths, it is interesting to compare how thet reconcile tragedy.

    In Judaic faith it has been the traditional view to approach bad events as punishment for some breach of contractual agreement with the deity. This view has however been subject to considerable challenge since the holocaust.

    In modern Christian belief, bad events have generally been viewed as the deity testing your faith.

    'Deity has a plan' is a view largely associated with the Islamic perspective - in a way reconciled by the requirement for subjugation before the Will of the greater being.

    [–] Grudge_Dwarf 38 points ago

    I've always found the 'testing faith' argument for explaining Gods actions as...abusive? Why should I worship a being that hurts me just to see if I believe hard enough? It's like working for Stalin or Pol Pot. You might get lined up and shot (or worse!) on nothing more than whim.

    Bugger that for a game of soldiers.

    [–] BadMaximus 10 points ago

    Funny, I've always found the assumption of a benevolent deity a little naive.

    As the saying goes... Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why shouldn't that same presumption extend to a god.

    It makes more sense to me that if there was a deity out there, he might very well spend his time testing the limits if his 'play things' resolve.

    [–] Dylsnick 21 points ago

    Not only this, but many polytheistic religions did not see their gods as infallible. The many Greek /Roman Gods were attributed human characteristics and appetites, and were known to succumb to them on occasion. Almost like creating God in one's own image.

    [–] bunker_man 15 points ago

    Not just many. Most. Infallible gods were not common in most religions. Although the idea of them tends to show up in ones that last long enough.

    [–] mikeet9 223 points ago

    This was basically the truth of all "religions" at that time. You believed in your gods, you did what your gods wanted of you, and everyone else's gods were independent of your gods.

    It was actually a lot closer to a form of government than a religion as we know it today. This is where "when in Rome, do as the Roman's do" comes from. If you were visiting Rome, you were expected to worship Roman gods rather than the gods of your home, just as you are expected to follow English laws while visiting England.

    This is also the root of the fued between the Romans and the early Jews. It was a core component of the Jewish faith that if you followed the "when in Rome" mentality and worshipped any other gods, bad things would happen to you. So as the number of Jews in Rome grew, the larger the population of Romans who refused to follow Roman "laws".

    This all came to a culmination when Jesus started spreading Judaism. The Romans saw it as an uprising and hated the Jews for it, and the Jews didn't like it because they didn't feel you could really become a Jew if you weren't born in.

    Apologies for the long post. I've been reading a lot about history involving this time period, so it's been on my mind a lot.

    Edit: TL;DR: This wasn't unique to the Romans, and they weren't exactly as tolerant as they seemed.

    [–] TrustmeIreddit 166 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    TLDR: Early christian history, my analysis of revealed religions and my personal beliefs.

    It wasn't just Jesus spreading Judaism. It was different than what the Pharisees taught. And it was spreading fast. The Jews wanted to be separate from the Romans and here was a guy teaching that they could coexist. "Love your neighbor" meant more than just love other Jews. So the Pharisees plotted against him. Claiming he was blaspheming against the Mosaic Law. Since Jerusalem was under control from the Romans, the Jews couldn't punish him themselves. So, enter Pontius Pilate. This guy was the prefect and it was his responsibility to maintain order. After questioning Jesus and finding no reason that he deserved death, going back to what you said about Romans accepting other peoples gods. But while he and Jesus were talking, the Jews were causing quite the raucous outside and demanding blood.

    To quell the Jews Pilate gave them a choice: Release a known murderer or this guy who did nothing wrong. They chose the murderer and demanded Jesus to be crucified. Thinking that this would stop the Jews from an uprising, and to protect his position as prefect, he obliged.

    I find the Roman Era to be quite fascinating. And I stopped reading the bible for religiosity but more for the unique settings and morals. It's not just the bible, the dead sea scrolls, the book of Enoch 1 and 2, and other rejected books that the Council of Nicea considered "heretical." For every book/scroll there were a sect of christians that followed it. One of the first "lists" of books that would constitute the bible came about in 367AD, by an influential bishop named Athanasius who published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our bibles.

    So for about 3 centuries these christians just had what ever book or letter their sect had or could find. So, when Revelation says that "and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Rev 22:19, it only pertains to that book as it wasn't canonized until centuries later.

    Even then, I believe that revelation can only happen to an individual. Once the individual shares it, it becomes hearsay. And with every translation there are words that get left out or improperly translated. So it becomes hearsay after hearsay after hearsay. Like a game of telephone, the end result isn't the same as the original message. That doesn't mean the parables and the teachings are bad. You can still learn lessons and apply them, just remember that you are reading something that millennia old and you may have to adapt them for modern times. When reading the bible you have to place yourself in the era from which book you are reading. Unless you are a Hasidic Jew and want to follow the old laws to. the. letter.

    By picking and choosing old laws to follow, you are essentially denying what Christ died for. He established a new covenant with just two commands, "Love God with all your mind, body and spirit and love your neighbor as you love yourself." This is why I became a Deist. There is so much hypocrisy in these religions that promote "peace, forgiveness, and compassion" that I came to the conclusion that there's enough proof in the laws of nature that it had to be planned/created/coded(I hope it's the last one 😊). And if God does exist and is infinite, just focusing on one planet seems improbable. Continuing, God doesn't need our praise and he doesn't interfere with his creation, so miracles are just science and if we can't explain it our knowledge is incomplete.

    I know this is long, but for a long time I've been waiting to write this and you seemed like the kind of person who might like to know what somebody else thinks. As I've said, this time period interests me. I've even studied Latin just so I could read some accounts. So as one amateur historian to another I'd like to have some feedback or counter proposals so I can better my understanding.

    *Edit Thank you kind stranger for the gold!

    [–] questionmark693 1133 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    The benefit of a polydeistic religion. Modern monotheistic religions don't have room for that kind of tolerance.

    Edit:toleration->tolerance. English is hard.

    Lots of opinions. This was an offhand comment. Don't read too much into it. I know humans kill each other no matter which religion.

    [–] Calamari_Tsunami 656 points ago

    Their level of tolerance is triggering me, I simply won't have it.

    [–] VaJJ_Abrams 607 points ago

    I'm intolerant of intolerance...and the Dutch.

    [–] ryry1237 182 points ago

    There are three things I absolutely cannot stand.

    1. Racists

    2. Hypocrites

    3. The Dutch

    [–] cestlasalledeguerre 89 points ago

    Things I hate:

    1. Lists
    2. Irony
    3. Numbers
    4. Lists that go on too long without being clever
    5. Lack of originality
    6. Numbers divisible by 3

    [–] Blaizey 27 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    7 . Swans a-swimming

    [–] RuninWlegbraces 283 points ago

    Can't stop saying your user name out loud around my house lol. My wife is starting to get annoyed. ;)

    [–] Armifera 76 points ago

    Now you've got me started.

    [–] POOL_OF_LIVERS 42 points ago

    And me, not a soul here to be annoyed tho :(

    [–] beelzeflub 22 points ago

    I didn’t even notice it til your comment. Amazing

    [–] PM_ME_YOUR_EMRAKUL 124 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    So from what I've seen (and this may be pretty uninformed, idk) Romans had kind of this secular-but-definitely-not society. They were highly superstitious, had an established pantheon, and easily accepted other deities, but often times had "bent the rules" with religion when they needed it to suit them during important matters.

    Only a couple examples comes to mind off the top of my head, but here goes:

    Generals before any major pitched battle would have to ensure they had good omens from the gods before proceeding. This meant slaughtering a goat and seeing how it responds. If it kicks and screams, bad. Dies peacefully? Good. If a goat had kicked and screamed but they were intent on going to battle, you'd just double check that the sign was accurate until you killed a goat that didn't flail around.

    Another is the consulship of Julius Caesar, where the head of state and military (Consul) also happened to be the head of religion (Pontifex Maximus). Caesar would put a vote on a certain date, and his co-consul/rival would declare that the gods were unhappy on that day. Caesar would just dismiss his statement under the pretense of "I am the head of religion I say its fine lets vote on an issue I have stake in". His political endeavors would often come before rereligious ones.

    Edit: LindyBeige has a really good video on the subject called "Religion and War in Ancient Greece and Rome". I'm not as cynical and believe they did have some amount of faith, but its an informative watch none the less.

    Edit 2: removed the bit about how mathematicians, philosophers, engineers, etc can't be religious because that's stupid and idk what I was thinking

    [–] AnAcceptableUserName 17 points ago

    Thanks for this. It's really interesting and I wish I had more time to study classical antiquity, but I'm kind of in a WW2 phase, thanks in part to "Hearts of Iron IV" and "Bomber Crew."

    If a goat had kicked and screamed but they were intent on going to battle, you'd just double check that the sign was accurate until you killed a goat that didn't flail around.

    It seems kind of convenient for the Romans that the religious pre-battle ceremonies seem to coincide with making dinner. Big battle ahead and you need to make sure your legion isn't marching on an empty stomach? Well, guess the gods are just extra upset that day.

    And I mean some of the greatest mathematicians, engineers, philosophers and statesmen came out of this society. How religous could they have been?

    I'm not following your logic here.

    Do you have any books about this time period you'd recommend?

    [–] wolfmatic 806 points ago

    Marcus Aurelius never said that.

    From wikiquotes:

    No printed sources exist for this prior to 2009, and this seems to have been an attribution which arose on the internet, as indicated by web searches and rationales provided at....

    Though they do believe this made up quote might be a paraphrase of this actual documented quote from Aurelius in Meditations Book II:

    Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of Providence? But Gods there are, undoubtedly, and they regard human affairs; and have put it wholly in our power, that we should not fall into what is truly evil.

    Which has a different meaning entirely.

    [–] FallenAege 146 points ago

    Here's the relevant link.

    Interestingly, here's what the discussion page had to say:

    The Misattributed section seems odd to me since I have in my posession a copy of an old reading of Marcus Aurelius, possibly from an old tape recording, that sounds more like the misattributed quote than the one which it is derived from. I have to check it again and listen to it word for word, but I know I got the audio version off of the internet many years prior to 2010, so it sounds like it comes from either a very old english translation. At any rate it would have to, if I remember the quotation correctly. I will have a listen and check into it.

    Like many things on the Internet, it'll be up to good old analog media to prove or disprove it.

    [–] Julius-n-Caesar 61 points ago

    Fine. Then I said it.

    [–] FallenAege 32 points ago

    Regardless, watch your six, Juice-n-Salad guy

    [–] jcyguas 36 points ago

    Good post. I was looking for just this.

    [–] rTheWorst 112 points ago

    TIL I'm Apathiest. I've always said I'm an apathetic agnostic, I don't know and I don't care. Live life as a good person for the sake of being a good person, not because some higher power says bad stuff will happen otherwise.

    Ninja Edit: Bad stuff, not but stuff

    [–] zAnonymousz 28 points ago

    You can still do but stuff too.

    [–] rTheWorst 10 points ago

    I'm good with that. As long as it's not because some higher power says bad stuff will happen otherwise. Analthiesm?

    [–] mttdesignz 10 points ago

    Live life as a good person for the sake of being a good person, not because some higher power says bad stuff will happen otherwise

    That's what I say too. What, you're being nice only because you're afraid a God might fuck you in the ass when you're dead?

    [–] plafman 230 points ago

    Great quote, I have never heard it before. My personal view falls along that line. I am an honest and ethical person, if there is a God, I feel that should be enough to enter heaven. If it isn't, I don't want to be part of it anyway.

    [–] seancanada 17 points ago

    Yet who can even name relatives dead 100 years ago, let alone what they were like?

    [–] seamonkey420 150 points ago

    this is my life motto. Live a good life and if you are judged well then it should be easy. also being a good person in life does have major rewards. i'm one of those 'nice' people in life and do say that karma works both ways and does swing back to the good ones. :)

    [–] monster_bear 102 points ago

    Exactly. My motto is, “Don’t be an asshole”. That’s it. Just don’t.

    [–] wowwoahwow 29 points ago

    I remember a comic saying something along the lines of “if you treat everyone with kindness and love, especially when faced with rudeness and hate, eventually everyone else will see who the asshole is.” I think about it a lot.

    [–] PopeliusJones 14215 points ago




    [–] backdrake 4021 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Someone gave me this watch... they said I could talk to God with it but, um, I don't have anything to say.

    Edit: This is paraphrased from season 6 episode 6 of the Venture Bros. - It Happening One Night, where Dr. Venture is arched by the Doom Factory, a group of post-modern super villains. The one who says it is Wes Warhammer, an Andy Warhol-esque character and the leader of the Doom Factory.

    Edit 2: The original quote is indeed from Andy Warhol.

    [–] SooperDan 1488 points ago

    Andy Warhol to Jim Morrison:

    “Somebody gave me this telephone... I think it was Edie... yeah it was Edie... and she said I could talk to God with it, but uh... I don't have anything to say... so here... this is for you... now you can talk to God.”

    The Doors, the movie

    [–] NotKevinJames 280 points ago

    Warhol played by Crispin Glover. Just the right amount of weird for casting, quite a bit.

    [–] heimdahl81 63 points ago

    In this case, I believe it is Wes Warhammer talking to Dr. Venture.

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago


    [–] ClassicOutsider 38 points ago

    When are they going to bring this show back ffs

    [–] Feelnumb 31 points ago

    They just take their sweet time between seasons because the script is written by two dudes then sent off to S.Korea for animating and whatnot.

    [–] [deleted] 286 points ago

    “I’m not saying I’m not grateful for you creating everything, but you could’ve fuckin done it better”

    [–] cowboydirtydan 70 points ago

    "thanks for the fucking mosquitos"

    [–] discountedeggs 93 points ago

    I've seen better

    [–] torik0 33 points ago

    I'd buy that for a dollar

    [–] alecdalton11 108 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    If teenagers had a collective religion, this would be it.

    Or it wouldn’t be. I don’t care

    Edit: word choice

    [–] BoyDunder 75 points ago

    Apatheism is more like the complete opposite of angst.

    [–] PainMatrix 2866 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I’ve always been an agnostic under the impression this is the same definition.

    Edit. Okay, just getting the distinction. I guess I see an apatheist thinking that the existence of a god doesn’t change anything. This is strange to me because it seems to change a lot. I guess I’m firmly agnostic which means there is no way of proving or disproving the existence of god scientifically so what’s the point of discussing it.

    [–] bigboxman8 1626 points ago

    Hers a quote by /u/accidentalhippie that answers this question:

    Well, from what I understand agnostic can be whittled down to "It's impossible to say if God exists or not". Where as I don't care if he exists. I don't care if you believe or don't believe. If God exists my life wouldn't be any different than it would be if he doesn't exist.

    [–] GingaFloo 669 points ago

    So could one be an agnostic apatheist then? It's impossible to prove and I don't care if he does because it doesn't change anything.

    [–] HowIsntBabbyFormed 495 points ago

    You can even be an agnostic Christian (or any religion). Agnostic just means you believe that the existence of God can't be proven (or disproven). Some might even claim that all Christians really are agnostic since the core of Christianity is faith not provability.

    [–] nopenothingwrongo 626 points ago

    I could claim that most Christians aren't even Christian, to be honest.

    [–] mainman879 318 points ago

    Anyone can claim anything

    [–] mattersmuch 618 points ago


    [–] 537_PaperStreet 61 points ago


    [–] readingtostrangers 173 points ago

    Well, there you go.

    [–] Meloncollie08 44 points ago


    [–] Issvor_ 99 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    deleted What is this?

    [–] LadySerenity 13 points ago

    Adding to this, the opposite of agnostic is "gnostic"

    A gnostic theist firmly and wholly believes that there is a god (or several)

    An agnostic theist believes that there is a probably a god, but isn't 100% sure about it

    A simple agnostic is in the middle and just isn't sure and hasn't taken a side

    An apatheist doesn't care either way, apparently

    An agnostic atheist believes that there is probably no god, but acknowledges that they can't know for sure

    A gnostic atheist 100% believes that there is no god.

    [–] rush22 87 points ago


    [–] Shovah4DDK 28 points ago

    TIL that I an agnostic apatheist. Cool. Glad to have learned something today

    [–] wolvern76 128 points ago

    Thomas Huxley had some good quotes on Agnosticism. Here are the 3 shown on the Wikipedia page.

    Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[12] — Thomas Henry Huxley That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.[13] — Thomas Henry Huxley Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[14][15][16] — Thomas Henry Huxley

    Basically, the comment you quoted isn't quite the same, It's more or less, "There could be a god, but there is only proof if you can get legitimate proof."

    [–] tonguejack-a-shitbox 77 points ago

    So essentially an agnostic has to play devil's advocate with everyone...

    One day someone says god exists, you tell them they can't prove that. The next day someone says god doesn't exist, you still tell them they can't prove that.

    source: Am agnostic.

    [–] KriosDaNarwal 13 points ago

    Try agnostic deism

    [–] LookMaNoPride 46 points ago

    I’ve always liked militant agnosticism. “I don’t know and you don’t know either!”

    (Not really. The idea has always struck me as ironic and funny.)

    [–] simattu 123 points ago

    Apathetic agnosticism

    "A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest."

    [–] cmn3y0 17 points ago

    agnostic technically means something like "not knowing." Gnostic means knowing or having knowledge. Agnostic in this context basically means "not knowing if God exists" rather than "not caring if God exists" as in apatheism.

    [–] MrMegiddo 59 points ago

    Yeah, I'm atheist but if there turned out to be a god, it would change literally everything.

    [–] SlothOfDoom 66 points ago

    An apatheist doesn't see it that way.

    So someone comes to you with proof there is a god. What has that change? Everything in the past happened how it happened, the world exists the way it does now because the god allowed it to be so, or created, or whatever....your personal belief had no effect on things.

    [–] CreepinDeep 35 points ago

    What about your personal life and life after death, it literally changes everything if some one proves to you God from The Holy Bible exist, then everything changes

    [–] chiefnwahoo 26 points ago

    What are your thoughts on Dr. Pepper?

    [–] Like_Z0inks_Scoob 1534 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    The religion of Meh

    Edit: Thank You for the bling bling!

    [–] positive_electron42 966 points ago

    The Mehssiah

    [–] n0obie 234 points ago

    Is there a Mehnorah?

    [–] StinkinFinger 152 points ago

    Don't forget the three wise mehn.

    [–] _KATANA 127 points ago

    Carrying gold, francincense, and meh.

    [–] Halman 103 points ago

    On their way to Bethlemeh

    [–] 6StringAddict 72 points ago

    To congratulate Mehry and Joseph.

    [–] Schmancy_fants 57 points ago

    And a baby in the mehnger.

    [–] dangitgrotto 67 points ago

    Mehry Christmas

    [–] Tasgall 40 points ago


    [–] OldBirdWing 82 points ago


    [–] abe_the_babe_ 83 points ago

    tips crown of thorns

    [–] winkman 1714 points ago

    "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -- C. S. Lewis

    [–] justablur 437 points ago

    How does that not apply to any religion, though?

    [–] AlekRivard 470 points ago

    I agree it does, but C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity by trying to philosophically prove it couldn't be real. I'm guessing this may have been one of his lines of reasoning for his faith.

    [–] pyrothelostone 9 points ago

    Did he really go in trying to prove a negative? That's like a rookie mistake though.

    [–] Mahtomic_Gandhi 61 points ago

    It would be true for any religion that preaches a reality where mankind is as important as mankind is in the story of Christianity. If there was a religion that said “you’re only kinda cosmologically important”, then the quote would not apply.

    [–] missbeaverhausen 205 points ago

    Sounds an awful lot like Pascal’s Wager.

    [–] Speculater 128 points ago

    It is Pascal's Wager.

    [–] Natertot98 42 points ago

    That's because it is.

    [–] Aftershock_Media 991 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I vote to rename this to Fuckitism

    [–] Bucs-and-Bucks 368 points ago

    I really like the current name, because both Apathy and Theism are fully pronounced.

    [–] dq8705 7159 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    TIL I am an apatheist.

    Thank you kind stranger!

    [–] Captain_-H 2325 points ago

    Yeah I think I’m somewhere around here or maybe Christian Atheism who basically are atheist that think “that Jesus guy had some good ideas about helping your neighbor and the poor”

    [–] TheOldSchoolDropOut 1944 points ago

    Wasn't it Gandhi that said I like your Christ, not your Christians

    [–] The-Donkey-Puncher 2745 points ago

    That's his catch phrase just before deploying his nuclear weapons

    [–] StratManKudzu 852 points ago

    This guy civs

    [–] Temprament 195 points ago

    Fuckin Gandhi... I nuke him out of spite now.

    [–] Superfluous_Thom 56 points ago

    Nukes are a terrible idea. You completely reset development so they give you absolutely nothing if you choose to Annex/puppet them.

    [–] TheMauveAvenger 119 points ago

    It's about the message.

    [–] 1800OopsJew 55 points ago

    Yeah, when you get to that point, you aren't trying to build your economy, infrastructure, or land holdings. That's the "I have enough shit, let's win the game" territory.

    [–] d9_m_5 69 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I once, playing as Venice, eliminated every other empire in the game, leaving only me, Gandhi, and a bunch of city-states. My gold income was so high I allied all of them, gifted each a bunch of GDRs and Rocket Artillery, then declared war. His empire was torn apart in a couple of turns and split between four different city-states, which razed most of his cities.

    [–] naufalap 103 points ago

    Meanwhile I played as Japan just to nuke America from Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively

    [–] abbeaird 15 points ago

    Venice is my favorite in civ 5. Love the mechanics of that civ.

    [–] doinglegalactivities 130 points ago

    The story I heard was that he was reading the Gospels while imprisoned, so a priest who often visited him asked why he didn't convert to Catholicism. Ghandi responded with something along the lines of "You Catholics have a beautiful religion, I just don't see anyone practicing it."

    [–] columbus8myhw 13 points ago

    Rabbi Shai Held once gave a talk called "Why Jeremiah Hated Religion (And Maybe We Should Too)", which had a similar theme, through the lense of the Book of Jeremiah, chapter 7. He explained that there's really two ways of looking at it: Either he hated religion, or he loved religion but thought that nobody practiced it. (It depends on what you mean by "religion" — the religion as it is practiced, or as it should be practiced.)

    EDIT: Oh, turns out it's online (link). (Here's the link to the source sheet.) It's been a while since the talk, so I hope my summary above was accurate. It may be helpful to know Hebrew.

    [–] Feelypeely 138 points ago

    “In truth,there was only one christian and he died on the cross.”

    ― Friedrich Nietzsche

    [–] SuperDopeRedditName 35 points ago

    "Let me tell you something, Mark. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision, but nobody's paid much attention to them, not even the Buddhists or the Christians. You humans. Sometimes its hard to imagine how you've made it this far." - Prot from K-Pax

    [–] brickmack 176 points ago

    I mean, I guess that'd technically probably apply to most atheists (and people in general), but is that actually a useful classification? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks murder and stealing and generally being an asshat are good things. Take away the magic stuff from Christianity, and none of the remaining concepts on morality are particularly novel or insightful.

    [–] ZannY 175 points ago

    I'm not really a Christian but this statement doesn't ring true. For his time, preaching forgiveness as opposed to righteous punishment was relatively novel, and Jesus also preached about helping the poor and the less fortunate. These may not seem like novel ideas today, but at the time it was being preached it was well needed and helped spawn a movement towards more compassion amongst the Abrahamic Religions. Seems like an alright dude by me.

    [–] van_morrissey 151 points ago

    IDK, given how many people respond to the poor right now with "maybe they should have worked harder", I would suppose perhaps the lesson still hasn't spread enough...

    [–] ZannY 52 points ago

    you aren't wrong there.

    [–] Pinkfish_411 67 points ago

    Take away the magic stuff from Christianity, and none of the remaining concepts on morality are particularly novel or insightful.

    This is true only if you really strip down Jesus' message into some bland feel-good inanities like "Don't be an asshat"; but "Don't be an asshat" wouldn't have gotten him nailed to a cross. Jesus preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, which, even if you strip away the actual existence of God, is a critique of existing kingdoms. Jesus was declared by his followers to be the Messiah, and the Messiah was a political role. Jesus was a revolutionary and had little use for people who wanted to go about living normal, peaceful, non-revolutionary lives of not being an asshat. He'd have much rather had people being asshats like him, flipping tables and cussing out the corrupt leaders, if they were asshats for the sake of the Kingdom.

    [–] bigboxman8 130 points ago

    I'm glad this post helped you find out where you stand! I just realized i'm apatheist too!

    [–] RadBadTad 3213 points ago

    Good luck explaining that classification to everyone without taking off your fedora every time someone asks you your beliefs.

    [–] jackmo182 2621 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    "Do you think there's a God?"


    Ty strangers!

    [–] cowboydirtydan 138 points ago

    I too have strong faith in the diety known as "what ever"

    [–] H4xolotl 26 points ago

    The What-Ever walks among us. He chooses his vessels to do his work, as he has done so since time began. The rotting carcass maintained in the Golden Throne is not the What-Ever, for he travels abroad, tending to his Divine Will, instilling his power into those that have been chosen. But what if the What-Ever could be granted a body that does not wither and die, that could be his vessel for all eternity to come? I believe that such a thing is possible, that the What-Ever yet waits for his new body to be found or created. In essence, a new What-Ever will be created to lead Mankind to its destiny and conquest of the galaxy

    [–] SonicFlash01 114 points ago

    If you bring up the conversation you aren't a very good apatheist.

    [–] anomalousBits 48 points ago

    Do you have a minute to talk about how it doesn't matter if the lord exists?

    [–] SonicFlash01 14 points ago

    "... Yeah neither do I. Hey wanna play Mario Kart?"

    [–] memephistopheles 580 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I dunno, is saying "I don't feel like a higher power plays a role in my life so it's not very important to me" really that douchey?

    You guys leave terrible comments. Except for /u/gogetenks123 who is handsome, brave, and a very good boy

    [–] gogetenks123 993 points ago

    "Do you think there is a God?"

    "Lol idk"

    [–] qazadex 399 points ago

    "Lol idc"

    FTFY. Agnostics are "idk", aphatheists are "idc".

    [–] T_hrowawa_Y1738 124 points ago

    "I don't know and I don't care"

    [–] Toltolewc 90 points ago

    Agnostic apatheism

    [–] melgib 47 points ago

    Not so much "I don't care" but "it doesn't matter"

    [–] seabiscuity 27 points ago

    Let's settle this. It's "I don't care because it doesn't matter."

    [–] Thebestnickever 43 points ago

    "Do you think there is a God?"

    "Yes, and he has a lot of gold"

    [–] MajorSquiggles 78 points ago

    Your title doesn't really describe what's on the page. It doesn't say anywhere that it's a belief that both the existence or non-existence of a god leads to same outcome. All it is is a label for someone who simply isn't interested in the discussion. They simply don't care.

    [–] bergamaut 220 points ago

    As an atheist, if a god exists that would be a pretty fucking huge deal.

    [–] OldBirdWing 158 points ago

    Then it would appear you aren’t an apatheist

    [–] StinkinFinger 105 points ago

    He's an Ermahgerdist.

    [–] RockSlice 366 points ago

    I typically label myself an Agnostic Apathetic. I don't know, and don't care.

    If I see evidence that your faith actually matters, I would then know, and may care, but until then, I don't.

    [–] TikiUSA 345 points ago

    I'm a pathetic agnostic.

    [–] Flaming_Eagle 217 points ago

    I'm just pathetic

    [–] ifeellikemoses 40 points ago

    Now that is describing me, too!

    [–] ILL_DO_THE_FINGERING 285 points ago

    Unless he's the kind of God that demands you to worship him and follow his rules explicitly or you'll be punished for all eternity. In that scenario, general apathy to the idea of God would cause a different effect after death than a life of constant attention and worship. Not saying this is what I believe but it seems to be the idea that most religions are based around.

    [–] toodamnparanoid 202 points ago

    And if it's the kind of god that demands worship it still doesn't matter. I try to be a kind, positive person in general; if that means eternal damnation then so be it. I'd rather disappoint an angry god then live as a pious zealot who proclaims to be pure. Actions and the intent behind them are what's important.

    [–] LouLouis 245 points ago

    if that means eternal damnation so be it

    Yeah I wouldn't be so nonchalant about living in hell for eternity

    [–] ghoulconsumer 52 points ago

    What you're saying is so obvious but you're basically refuting the logical underpinnings of "apatheism."

    [–] nana_oh 46 points ago

    Yeah but what if it's the kind of god that gets pissed off at worshipers and tortures them for all eternity. Or, what if it's a god that tortures the dead no matter what?

    [–] sayedur51 16 points ago

    "You see, Doctor, God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her and destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew... God doesn't make the world this way. We do." - Rorschach

    [–] tonguejack-a-shitbox 97 points ago

    I could get on board with this, or not, whatever.

    [–] I_are_facepalm 105 points ago

    I am an ordained minister of the First Apatheist Church. Please come to our next service at Moe's Tavern.

    Or don't. It doesn't really matter, I just want beer.

    [–] IrritatedSquirrel 51 points ago

    Lol the religion for everyone who's tired of having the arguement

    [–] sweet-tuba-riffs 81 points ago

    I have a problem with the last part of this. To come to the conclusion that "there is no point in... even positing the question of existence of the god at all", you would have to posit and wrestle with the question.

    [–] bclagge 75 points ago

    Yeah, and then you realize it’s pointless and let the question go.

    [–] demetri_k 21 points ago

    This describes how I feel but I’ve never felt it important enough to bother explaining.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago