You have five seconds to explain why you're not an agnostic atheist

You have five seconds to explain why you're not an agnostic atheist

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rFhCUgbf0Ak
jakubmarian.com/can-mathematical-theorems-be-proved-with-100-certainty/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I am
It makes me feel free

Because I am Ignostic Master Race

Ignosticism isn't real

I am

From Guenon's "Crisis of the Modern World:"

It is only in the nineteenth century however that one finds men glorifying in their ignorance (since to call oneself an "agnostic" amounts to nothing else), and claiming to deny others all knowledge of the things they themselves are ignorant of, and that stage marked a further step in the intellectual decline of the West.

I'm a gnostic theist, hell, I've got a good deal in common with actual Gnostics.

Look, I want to gas christcucks, mudslimes, and kikes just as much as any sensible person, and I would love little more than to violently enforce state atheism on the masses, but if we are getting real, y'know, REAL, then atheism is not my honest belief.

I am a metaphysical idealist and I believe that all things are. "Gods" are things, for one, though I understand these entities like Yahweh and Zeus to be in the same category as the Demiurge - they exist just as much as we do, but they are as much trapped within the confines of reality as we are.

In actuality the thing I consider divine, that is, the "god" I believe in is a transcendental godhead which all things are fundamentally part of, including us, and that further, we are not bodies, minds, egos, or even souls, but rather the tendrils of that divine superbeing, Akasha, which observe reality and make creation.

In my personal life I also find comfort in the great divinity of Noire, though in practice I align myself politically, and to a certain extent, ideologically, with militant anti-theism.

intellectual humility is not glorifying ignorance. don't be a sperg.

Ignosticism is basically red pilled af Agnosticism

Fucking garbage from cuckservative religiousfags as usual

Since the 19th Century technology and civilization has rapidly progressed more than at any other time in History

Yeah, but it is though.
> I don't know so I ain't gonna know

You lack faith, brother.

Why should you be humble in knowledge that man already possesses? When you proclaim agnosticism, you renounce return to your inner self and the connection with the divine. Sounds pretty ignorant to me.

Guenon was not religious in the popular meaning of the word. Also, technology and civilization are one of the results of falling deeper into the Kali Yuga.

Agnostic atheist here, I guess.

100% sure that the gods known to humanity aren't real (besides Kek of course), but we have yet to determine whether
anything about the universe was intentional, or what happened before the Big Bang.

I don't need faith. I arrived at my position of gnostic theism entirely by the vehicle of logic. What is certain to me is certain because it is necessarily the case, and any potential failure to reconcile my perception with the truth is nothing but my own inability to see.

...

>I arrived at my position of gnostic theism
>entirely by the vehicle of logic
Oh boy

Well said. Yet, faith is the cornerstone of any theism. One can not know a God exists without believing in God.

>technology and civilization are one of the results of falling deeper into the Kali Yuga.
No they're the results of intelligence and hard work

And if anything according to Guenon's logic every religion is ignorant because they just ignore previous religions anyway aka
>Hurr durr Polytheistic Religions are heretics let's burn them

Look around you. You either have faith that all of this was a series of random happenings or have faith that all of this was created for a reason.

Look at all that science can't explain. Look at all, in our supreme wisdom, we as a people don't know. Look at our history and how we've been so wrong about so many things so often.

>I have zero evidence for or against so I can only guess

>When you proclaim agnosticism, you renounce return to your inner self and the connection with the divine.
No you fucking don't you brainwashed moron
You renounce the Evil Jewish fairytales that are the Abrahamic religions

Remember when the sky being blue was unexplainable?
I want to have faith, I do, but I can not. So instead I doubt.

underrated

Guenon does not argue against religion on basis that it is a religion, but rather because it introduces concepts and practices that led to religion becoming only a degenerated practice of its former self.

>You renounce the Evil Jewish fairytales that are the Abrahamic religions

This is a given, but your can still participate in divine knowledge without following the Jewish Demiurge.

And atoms are still just a theory.

>Look at all that science can't explain
Can't we just assume like all other inexplicable occurrences there will soon be explanations for these things via science?

here we go...
you got some inner bias and ignorance of your own to work through. As an agnostic that should also make you naturally skeptical. And to be perfectly skeptical, you would need to distrust so many declarations of God without evidence that you in fact CONSIDER all information about God as unproven yet true. Working from there, you can aptly sift through lies and inconsistencies to find both truth and God.

To not do this and remain a blind, biased skeptic, in my view makes you no better than any devout mudslime you abhor.

Occam's razor - we must accept the theory that explains all observations with the least, smallest assumptions. God dude is a big one.

I am not convincing theists against faith, gnostic atheism is a fedorameme. I am just saying that the ways theists try to convince me don't convert me, but I allow myself to have doubt.

Explain to me why the debate is about this god character but not about what this god is. Explain sacred geometry to me. The question whether god exists or not is the most boring question of theology.

If science has proven anything it's that we can't fully understand everything.

doubt without a willingness to search after the answers you await is frankly immature and not doing so makes you lazy and unworthy to discuss these things.

I have personal beliefs that there is something beyond our understanding, but I think there are more important things in this World to fix than god's existance that any time spent in that is irrelevant.

But I am searching for answers, in the natural philosophies right now, and once my financial status is set, in the abstract philosophies too.

No it hasn't. At the very most that we can't fully understand everything right now but science is the only method by which we may attain full knowledge of everything

But isn't modern science reduced to experimental science? How can we know fully know anything if we rely on the construction and deconstruction of hypotheses?

I am 100% certain there is no God. So gnostic atheist I guess?

Science is one method. Trust in God is another. They are not mutually exclusive.

good for you, follow that chase where ever it takes you! I recommend always staying open to new information, and considering everything before brashly closing yourself off from it. I believe there is only either universal truth or information. One of these is that which we seek, and the other is that which houses what we seek. bless u

Thats about as smart and logical as being 100% certain in a gamble's outcome.

Look, you will no doubt have issue with this metric because you're a probably a materialist, and even if you're not, you probably have internalize the materialist notion of separation between "the real" and "the unreal" as being equivalent to the separation between being and not being...BUT I'll still present some facts to you. Specifically, I'm going to address the issue of what you're probably most concerned with, the claim that the kike desert skyman god, Yahweh, exists.

So: what is is, that is to say, things exist, and therefore, everything exists.

The only province for nonexistence is nothing.

Yahweh is a thing.

We know that it exists because it is not nothing.

Then comes this analysis of real and unreal, nonfiction and fiction - an analysis entirely grounded in the obviously false materialist conception of reality.

Why? Show me God exists.

>is Agnostic atheist

fuck yeah I already won.

Why do you think any one man could comprehend such a being like a Creator god? You must embark on that great journey my user friend. What I can tell you is that I understand there are universal truths and information strings, and the universal truth inside of any string of information is what declares the information to be true. Religion is no coincidence, especially those of pagan and wiccan origins. The great multitude of religious variation tells me that there is human spirituality within all mankind... and this source has a cause which I believe to be ultimately from an awareness of a divine Creator. Asking people to declare what is truth to you is tempting, but that long road is for you to walk.

There is no meaningful difference between "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist". This spectrum exists as an invention of tippers to rope agnostics in with them.

no it really isn't like that and here's why.

An omniscient being is a contradiction in terms.

Thinking just means processing information in order to get some new information. You have some information at point A, then you process that information in some manner and now you're at point B where the total of your knowledge is larger than it was. Thinking is moving from A to B.

Now that we defined thinking, do you think you could think(ha) if you already knew everything?

When I say what's 2 + 2, do you really think about the answer? You know it by heart by now, you don't need that travel time from A to B because you traveled that distance before. Now you have faulty memory but a god, a perfect being would not have memory at all. A god would have all the information that exists at his disposal at all times. So it's not like he could forget the result of processing some particular information. He would know it all.

He would know everything that ever was, everything that is and everything that will be, all at the same time.

So essentially God, if he is omniscient would not have the ability to think.

Without the ability to think, God could never change. God would be nothing more than an automated script that just executes line by line of its predetermined code.

So that would mean that judgment, forgiveness, condemnation, all of that would be nothing more than a sensory response, automated and predetermined, no different than a bug that changes direction after its antenna hits an obstacle


So yeah, you can say that (as people believe in it) can't ever exist, with complete certainty.

This is just an argument against kike skyman god, not theism.

not having 100% definitive proof of something doesn't mean we will never discover something that will bring new evidence to light that might change something. saying i know 100% there is no god is stupid because you don't have 100% of all the information on everything in the universe. that's why the burden of proof exists. you need to prove your statement for the existence of god. there is no need to prove that there is no god because it's impossible to disprove the possibility that something like a god exists because so far our knowledge is very limited.

>things exist, and therefore, everything exists
Square circles don't exist so no, not everything exists by virtue of things existing.

So you would want to believe in an automated script? What do you get from that? Because remember you could never know what the script was programmed to do, and further more by who was it programmed to do that thing.

And inability to think cancels any possibility of self-awareness too

Ah look! Another biased athiest! Tell me, friend, where at all in my words did I mention the God of the Bible? You as well need to keep searching. Its too lazy to stop this walk, friend.
Your logic works... but only if the conditions you put forth to make such logic work were true. Do YOU know them to be true? How do you know the Creator is omniscient? Jeez...

I'm demi-gnostic! :DDD

what's the point in believing in him then? how would he possibly know about your believes if he isn't omniscient and if he doesn't know about your believes he can't condemn you in whatever the way he condemns, so there's no difference for you, no gain or loss, whether you believe or not...

I would consider myself an agnostic atheist, but it's actually more like "I don't really care".
There's no way I can know for sure if there is a god or not, and I'm not going to change how I live my life based on the possibility that he exists and that he might send me to hell for some minor transgression.
I do think that in general, Christian values and traditions are a positive thing.
I also don't think that anyone is stupid for believing in God, which is why I really hate all the Bill Maher/Richard Dawkins fedora tippers and their smug sense of superiority.

Ontological impossibility is incredibly niche, in that it relies on inherent logical failures - lack of appreciation for the meaning inherent in an idea. It is a problem of language and communication, not actually of logic. I do agree that square circles for instance do not exist, but this is because I appreciate that a square has a particular meaning and a circle has a particular meaning, and that they are incompatible regardless of what language allows... Again however, this whole phenomenon of the ontologically impossible covers incredibly narrow space, all of which is necessarily immediately recognizable as false.

This concept of "things" translates to an awareness of discrete objects. We perceive (technically always) in our mind's eye what is meant by a thing, and this perception of the thing is in fact the thing, or said differently, there is nothing outside of that perception.

So when you see a tree, you may believe that you have processed light into information in your brain and this image is constructed, but that image is not viewed by your eyes or your brain, but by your mind, or your mind's eye. And in fact, that tree which supposedly exists as some collection of matter, energy, and forces externally to you is never visible, you can only ever see the "distortion" of it permitted by your perception.

As I've been writing this description of the tree, you necessarily imagined a tree, you saw a tree, in your mind's eye. You were aware of a discrete thing in that tree, if only because you feel the need to rationalize to yourself that it is only a mental image.

That tree is there, actually, in the same capacity as the tree you believe yourself seeing when you go outside. They are both equally discrete objects which certainly exist, and the only difference in the value of that existence is your personal assessment that one of these trees is physical and the other mental... Such a delusion is beyond the pale of fantasy, it's lunacy.

>So you would want to believe in an automated script?
Want does not factor into truth. That's a very bluepilled notion.

>What do you get from that?
I "get" nothing from acknowledging the world as it is, aside from maybe satisfaction that I am not deluded by lies.

more bias....
no fun to talk to. keep searching. or not, its all at your own loss and peril

this logic only works if the attributes you BIASEDLY believe to be true are in fact true. This whole string of yours is fabricated on a shakey foundation.

>how would he possibly know about your believes if he isn't omniscient
The idea that it is necessary to be onmniscient to know about the beliefs of others is not only obviously false, it may be one of the most asinine arguments of any kind that I've ever seen.

"Agnostic" is a buzzword that atheists came up with to deflect criticism towards their lack of belief ("but I don't deny god I'm not an atheist, I'm AGNOSTIC"). It has since morphed into "hurrrdurr I don't know shit I'm a faggot" -stamp. It's now effectively the centrism of religion and centrism serves absolutely no purpose in religion. Just admit you're atheist, bear the responsibility.

I am though ausbro. agnostic athiest master race 4 life.

>LOOK AT ME GUYS I AM AGNOSTIC I AM SO SMART

Ok then user, You have a gigant pink dick phantom dick stuck to your forehead that is visible to everyone but you and no one can tell you about it.
Prove me I am wrong, oh wait you can't because
>LOOK GUYS I AM AGNOSTIC I AM SO SMART


There is no proof that there is god, and it can't be proven that there is go so unless this changes, officially there is no god.

it's not asinine

so god isn't omniscient but he still knows about your thoughts? by which mechanism does he get this knowledge? Don't you see that omniscience was invented as one of his attributes solely to scare people into believing in him because he knows ALL!

but this is belief not science. It's by definition not an acknowledgment of the world as it it but rather seeing the world as you think it is(without any evidence) or even more precisely, seeing the world as you want it to be.

Belief is not scientific. Your belief isn't a product of the scientific method. It's just something you think to be true for no reason, and no logic(as I demonstrated).

>i declare what is and isnt
>i havent done any research or participation of my own but i know more than those with decades of knowledge on this subject
LMAO

This.
You can prove there is no god in much the same way you can prove there is no such thing as a square-circle.

listen to this song:
youtube.com/watch?v=rFhCUgbf0Ak

realize that we are matter, and matter is energy and notice the scale of that energy and what is left when it is dissipated.

Grasp the concept of emptiness and of tangible existence that due to cosmological principles that coincidentally are extremely complex and almost certainly impossibly rare we have a universe where things are, and things are not.

and the dividing line between the two is the presence of coagulated energy in matter or form or its absence entirely.

Yet the conditions for the matter still stand, held in part by forces that literally just exist according to mathematical models we have uncovered.

There is no rhyme or reason for the existence of reality. There is no rhyme or reason for existence itself if we try to look back only from itself.

Like trying to prove arithmetic from within arithmetic, we run into the problem of godels incompleteness. 'We can never truly know'

"The conclusion is that while mathematics (resp. logic) undoubtedly is more exact than any other science, it is not 100% exact. We cannot be 100% sure that a mathematical theorem holds; we just have good reasons to believe it."

If it is undoubtably not exact, then it means a gnostic is one who is certain in their belief but may hold logical or mathematical uncertainties. Agnostic is just uncertain in belief in response to logical or mathematical uncertainties. This only proves that humans beliefs are not based on their uncertainties in general but rather based on the "fact pattern" the emergent property from analyzing data in sum.

The unprovable but fully investable ideal.

If kant were right and we cannot percieve reality as it is, but only get approximations. Then what we have confidence in is not the logic's certainty, but that the approximation is *better* and *more true* as per godel's observation that some truths are unprovable from prior axioms.

God explains reality the best.

Because real science, functional Gospel principles, and positive results from following Christ. Atheism and anti-Christism is the height of selfishness and degeneracy.

Let me open by saying again that I'm not the Abrahamic christcuck you seem to think yourself responding to.

>but this is belief not science. It's by definition not an acknowledgment of the world as it it but rather seeing the world as you think it is(without any evidence) or even more precisely, seeing the world as you want it to be.
This is circular reasoning at its most raw. /You/ gave /me/ the premise that an omniscient being is incapable of thought, and though I don't necessarily agree with that premise, I did not challenge it. Instead, I simply critiqued that lacking the ability to think is somehow a denial of its existence. Indeed, you presupposed that such a god exists in your claim. You were attacking the idea of worshiping this god, and I can't entirely fault you for that, but to then turn around and make the claim that I'm in denial of the world because I don't challenge the premise you set up... that's just not logical.

>Belief is not scientific. Your belief isn't a product of the scientific method.
Belief is not scientific, sure. My belief is, indeed, not the product of the scientific method. It is however, the product of pure reason. The logical method. The method by which we attempt to arrive at truth and certainty, rather than comfort and probability.

>so god isn't omniscient but he still knows about your thoughts? by which mechanism does he get this knowledge?
Well, simply having the power to know the thoughts of others isn't indicative of omniscience. Do you think Professor X is omniscient?

>knowledge on this subject

All the "knowledge" we have about religion is mostly from holy books
And its like writing your own book about something and then referencing yourself

And no, its not me that decide what is and what is not real, its logic.
As I said, you may CLAIM, that something might exist but as long as you don't provide definitive proof or are able to provide proof that it does, it does not exist.

You have 5 seconds to explain why you're a fucking retard.

> The logical method.

explain it then.

>Do you think Professor X is omniscient?

did you just imply your god is a bold guy in a wheelchair?

>explain it then.
Sure, already did to a certain extent. () () ()

>did you just imply your god is a bold guy in a wheelchair?
No, I simply pointed out that your claim - that knowing the thoughts of others requires or is indicative of omniscience - is pretty ridiculous. If I know what you're thinking, I suddenly know everything? That's just silly.

>I am a metaphysical idealist
>idealist

Metaphysical idealism has nothing to do with optimism or hope or faith. It is also known as ideationalism, because it is contrasted with materialism. The substance of reality in metaphysical idealism is entirely ideational - that is to say, there is no ridiculous pretense that there exists a world external to perception

>there is no ridiculous pretense that there exists a world external to perception

>Thinking just means processing information in order to get some new information.

No, thinking is how we define a uniquely human process, but unlike other areas of epistemology or ontology, human thought, while remarkably correlative with physical reality is not ultimately explainable by it alone. Qualia and consciousness "make no sense", we just know what it does, that it exists and that the brain is very important.

Even if we found the exact part of the brain, the exact nerves and structures which once removed, destroy consciousness. We would still have no explanation for qualia other than the metaphysical "the universe observing itself" which is pantheistic but does not deny god who "observes" laws into reality, especially if we are extensions of his own divinity.

The structures may be necessary but they are NOT sufficient. Your initial assumptions are only possible if you make a huge leap in logic between "metaphysical" and "physical"

>You have some information at point A, then you process that information in some manner and now you're at point B where the total of your knowledge is larger than it was. Thinking is moving from A to B.

No, you are again convoluting qualia of thought with process. Also defining thought with human limits without abstracting those limits to absolute minimums is silly. But i can still refute your argument even on your own terms.

Observation (according to wave collapse) is moving from A to B (from probable to real and to real again). Thinking is then just observation and omniscience is really a matter of effect on reality and not on "information" (arbitrary and foolish given that the entire universe including all physical reality is information).

>Now that we defined thinking, do you think you could think(ha) if you already knew everything?

Yes, you could, because to observe is to think and this is causality itself which we universally observe but cannot influence except within our own consciousness. Hence god.

excellent observation, also this provides a flawless posture for the ontological argument which proposes that god is the most perfect existence possible, it is more perfect to be real, god exists.

But the thing is, ontology does not refute the nature of efficient causality or of the value of logical divisions of reality. In fact it cannot.

Without efficient causality and an explanation for it, everything exists as a possibility but nothing can be explained

>not being an agnostic theist

fantastic observations i have a author you will be interested in. An academic i know personally. Imants Baruss, he is ingenious and explores the complecated questions of consciousness from a transcendental perspective because he believes materialism is dead and dualism can only exist in soft form due to all available evidence.

he is not just convincing, he is right but more important is that there is a tremendous amount of data that 'materialists' are doing their best to suppress from the discourse.

I am.

> All the "knowledge" we have about religion is mostly from holy books
Summa theologica, entirely from philosophy
Theology and philosophy of religion
History and culture
>all the knowledge

>And its like writing your own book about something and then referencing yourself
>ignores the fact that early christians had to argue against the aristotlean interpretation of reality and god and won

>And no, its not me that decide what is and what is not real, its logic
>Ignores logic
can you even godel?
jakubmarian.com/can-mathematical-theorems-be-proved-with-100-certainty/

Its funny when an atheist says out loud "i am a fucking retard wooheee look at me *tips fedora* suck it theists" Its like looking at a feminist

Because agnostic atheists are too pussy to go full atheist. Gnostic atheism is where it's at.

enjoying your responses man good posts, very clear.

Did you do philosophy by chance?

To be clear, i am saying that we are the thought of god which he observes in his own mind. Whereas the thoughts we observe in our mind only influence the reality of our mind.

the only difference between subjective and objective reality is in the mind of the being doing the imagining. "processing information" is just the lower being getting traits of god such as "observation" necessary for its own mental abilities to cause within itself. However these traits are directly limited by god.

Observation is what converts "information" to "reality" and as a result, there is no functional difference between "omniscience and omnipotence" other than perspective. That is, omniscience is a truly human construct.

As an extra:
The question of evil is not "does god know" or "is god strong" therefore "god is evil". it is "god is strong", "strength is bad" therefore "god is evil". The argument for evil is entirely premised on fallacies that equate god with man in all things.

I am not retarded.

sounds quite based

I believe that Gods are ideals certain an organism(individual,family,tribe,nation,race,species or even all forms of life and dead objects) follows.
Thing is it isnt just an abstract idea that only exist in our minds and is basicly nothing more then a configuration of particles.
No it is an acctual "thing" that has good amounts of "energy" depending on how strong this God is followed.
Rituals are basicly some sort of feeding this God with might so he can change the cause of events.
But you need to know witch God to worship, because every single one of them does different things. And there are also Gods that are more suitable for the organism.

For example the Jews worship JHW who is supposed to grant them a comfortable life and goy servants.
Sup Forums worships KeK
Christians and muzzies worship false Gods
and so on.

The Gods are neither beings nor just passive things.
I dont know what Gods are as they seem to have both atributes.

Why? I've had mystical experiences. Funny thing is, they literally force you to believe.

Was an atheist before that, and I'm not affiliated with any religion now. They would call me a theist, but I even have problems with that definition (of linguistic nature: to me, 'theist' implies a separate entity, but I think divinity is everywhere).

I consider spiritual practice to be an individual relationship with reality, so no answer is definitive in this issue. Atheism is the correct answer until the mystical experience. I strongly suggest everyone to pick up their spiritual practice. It's worth it, and that doesn't mean you accept the institutionalized religion bullshit.

ew satanism is the worst piece of horse trash ever devised. Literally as bad as subjectivist positivism but entirely selfish and defined by a theistic orthodoxy that it rebels against.

Faggotry 2.0

Because I'm an agnostic and I was christened so therefore I cannot be an atheist

I also wouldnt want to be grouped in with all the atheist crowd anyway because theyre literally worse than jesusfags

>wwe match
>takes place in "the ring" (a circle)
>the ring is a square
>squared circle

Because I'm an agnostic theist

but i am.

everytging else can be argued against6

I dont know of a single religion there is more missinformation about then Satanism.

Its literally the path of light.
Satan literally means Light or Knowlege.

Agnostic Atheist.

Oh and did you even read my post? I dont even mention Satanism there, I just chose this pic because I think it fits best, when talking about general spirituality.

But I am not sure if KEK is real or not.

I am skeptical of his existance.

Am I good Sup Forums?

Implying Kek is a being

Kek is a force deep down inside all of us, much like with the orks.
If we believe (meme) hard enough, anything can happen - Most people are just too dumb to realise this, but we on Sup Forums are being manipulated by the Jews to think like such

What am I if I'm agnostic atheist but I think there should be a state religion to enforce the law and control the people?

Gods form is a
force being dualism

I tried to describe it better here

explain in a way that an ork can understand

Chart is reddit-tier bullshit. English it's defined how we use it, not by how it's defined. There are only 3 categories: Theist, agnostic, and atheist. If you deny religion, then you are atheist.

Anyways you'll attack religion as of you know it's wrong, then when someone attacks you, you pretend to be agnostic so you don't have to defend yourself.

that was the wrong ork