/lit/ - Literature

>>13115736
I'm pretty sure I am. I've spent a few years, maybe 8 now, trying to understand what God is and I think it's a meme. The abrahamic type of god, and also any conception of the absolute or oneness from eastern religions. It's all wewery

I'm an agnostic
I don't know if God is real, and I doubt I'll ever make some "leap of faith" to believe
Even the most convincing argument for God may be wrong

>>13115736
Cause I like going to church

Was Hume an atheist?

Perhaps I'm a coward in this regard, but I could never go so far as to assert that god does not exist. I think it's obvious that religion is a fabrication, but the prospect of there being a creator seems a considerably plausible one to me. Intuitive, in fact. I can only go so far as agnosticism.

>>13115736
I don't want to be bullied by Christian LARPers.

>>13115765
Are you joking? He's one of the most famous atheist philosophers.

>>13115736
Because I accept that a prime mover has to exist.

I don't understand what is going on when I hear Christians talk about grace and the trinity and the ressurection and so on. It's all impenetrable to me.

>>13115736
>2019
>being an atheist

Ironically its to idealistic to be a full athiest

>>13115780
>prime mover
Read Kant.

>>13115776
He was agnostic, technically.

Hobbes and Epicurus also weren't really atheists. They both believed in God (gods in Epicurus' case), though they had weird materialist notions of God which is often seen as at the very least proto-atheist.

>>13115773
Just don't go to /lit/, problem solved.

>>13115761
Hot take: Kierkegaard's religious stage was just the aesthetic stage under a different name.

>pretending to be capable of genuine theological/spiritual understanding in the soulless late-materialist """west"""

makes me laugh every time

because asserting that you know something when you dont is just a lie and believing something based on no evidence is stupid af. agnosticism is just impotent fence-sitting also.

join the eternalist gang lit.

>>13116035
damn I thought it was a meme to shit on you so I just ignored your posts and posts about you, but you suck butterfly wtf

>>13115736
it’s out of style, rn
if it comes back in style i will become an atheist

>>13116055
that's an imitator retard

>>13115780
why can't totality be its own endlessly eternal movement? how does something precede existence? how can creation ex nihilo occur? with what material is the creation founded?

prime mover is just a shit wit way of saying 'will of yahway'.

>>13115736
I probably am. Never went to church until I was 13, tried to believe in it and went through all the motions. I wasn't angry at the church or anything like that, just didn't believe in God.

>>13115736
9x9 board w shakespeare, homer etc

>>13115766
So you are an atheist then?

>>13115736
I am a reflection of the source. I have experiences, it does paint my source.
I am, therefore God is implied.

Why is it that half of this board just doesn't even understand what atheism means? It's a fucking negation: if you lack a theistic commitment then you're an atheist, not an agnostic.

>>13116198
>atheism
becuase many view it as a belife ifh nth nonesxisitnce of gof

>>13116198
You're incorrect, atheism is the claim that there does not exist a god. Not that there might not be, not that it's undecidable, it quite clearly claims that there is none, full stop

>>13116221
Theism is the belief in gods
the a prefix means without
An amoral person doesn't have to claim there are no morals, even though they might, they are simply without morals.

>>13116221
No, you're just wrong. It's a negation of theistic commitment. It says nothing about deism for starters, and it also means that if you're "on the fence" then you are technically an atheist. Agnosticism is, and always has been confused. Atheism is not a strong, positive claim. When did this become unclear?

Too objectively low IQ for me.

I always found atheism lazy and uninteresting.

>>13116275
Just like reality

>>13116275
Lazy and uninteresting in the same way that NOT doing anything else is. Is it lazy and uninteresting to NOT run a marathon, or lazy and uninteresting to NOT build a boat? I fucking swear to god, the inability of people in this thread to grasp the very simple notion that atheism is a negation is nearly beyond me. Atheism isn't a fucking belief system.

>>13116292
based

>>13116089
How can creation come from nothing? Isn't that exactly the point. There must be something to start the chain. Not a nothing.

>>13116314
>How can creation come from nothing?
Who knows for sure
>There must be something to start the chain
Prove it

>>13116198
No because being an atheist comes with it its own ideologies, there are many flavours of atheist. Like the ones who replace religion with progressivism or in the past, communism. You can't simply say that atheism is just a negation when it often leads to ideologies that dominate the way a person thinks.

>>13116314
Existence didn't come from anywhere, it has always been.

>>13116320
If there isn't then we have infinite regress which is logically impossible.

I'm aware the argument isn't bulletproof, but just saying "well prove it" isn't very persuasive.

>>13116329
Please don't be this retarded. You can be a theist and any of the things you mentioned; theist and commie, theist and progressive. Atheism doesn't necessarily come with any kind of ideology at all. Once again, it is a negation of theism: THAT'S ALL. Whatever other ideologies an atheist espouses is entirely contingent on other factors.

>>13116352
Infinite regress isn't logically impossible though.

>>13115736
Because the self is divine.

>why aren't you an atheist?
Through prayer and the experience of the Holy Spirit I've become a believer. I was not always one and the process took many years. That's the best answer I can give.

>>13116329
>you can't say an empty bucket is empty because it can be filled with shit
The ineptitude

>>13115818
Stirner was also technically agnostic. His argument in Ego and its Own was that even if God is real, he works in his own interest and so his rules should be disregarded for those of your own interest.

>>13116356
>you can be a theist and a commie.

Maybe there are some contradictory christians out there who believe in communism. But you cannot have any kind of religion in an explicitly materialist philosophy.

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism."

Atheism itself does not have an ideology but it necessarily leads to it, you can't just believe in nothing or you'll be putting a noose around your neck, if you've written off religious beliefs then you're much more likely to subscribe to materialist beliefs instead.

>>13116386
If God is real you're following his rules by working in your own interest anyway

Because God is love, and love exists, my fren.

>>13116385
In your example the empty bucket is what? A persons belief system? Nobody has no beliefs whatsoever.

>>13116415
Atheism only refers to absence of belief in god. In order to fill that bucket you would have to make something else perform the role of a god. And while it's true that many atheists turn their secular ideologies into god, that isn't a necessary consequence of atheism anymore than zealotry is a consequence of theism.

When I was 8-years-old I was at a Christian Chuck-E-Cheese clone playing a Noah's Ark- themed videogame and it struck me: all this shit is too ridiculous to not believe; or, as Tertullian put it: Certum est quia impossible. And with that, the Holy Spirit descended and like an axe splitting open my skull opened it to the mysteries of eternity.

>>13116186
>I'm an agnostic
>what so ur atheist then bruh????

>>13116476
Pretty much yes. It's either P or not P.

>>13116255
>it's a negation of theism
Then it is the assertion that there is no theistic god you brainlet. Being on the gene doesn't make you an atheist because agnostics don't assert that there is no god. Do you know what negation means?

>>13116527
FENCe not gene
T. Phoneposter

>>13116526
>Either time began or it did not begin.

>>13116527
This is fucking exhausting. Atheism isn't an 'assertion'. I can make utterances to the effect 'there is no god' which you or I might take to be characteristic utterances for an atheist to make. But atheism itself asserts nothing, literally. Otherwise I'm constantly making an infinite amount of assertions about all of the other things I don't believe.

>>13115736
I actually am but looking at these guys almost makes me wish I wasn't.

>>13116581
>What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? Obviously, in order to distinguish between an atheist and a non-atheist, two questions must be answered: (1) “Do you believe in the existence of God?”; (2) “Do you believe in the nonexistence of God?” An agnostic answers NO to both questions; an atheist answers NO to 1 and YES to 2.
>Failing to answer YES to question 2 while calling oneself an “atheist” amounts to declaring oneself both an atheist and an agnostic; the terms become effectively redundant. This fails to provide enough information to determine one’s theological stance vis-a-vis the existence of God.
>The only way around this is to claim that an atheist differs epistemologically from an agnostic, somehow “knowing” that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God can be conclusively established. However, this too entails a burden of proof, and we don’t see this burden being met.

>>13115736
NEET was a-everything, he doesn't count

>>13116609
I appreciate the relatively thoughtful reply, but as far as I can tell answering 'NO' to question one is a sufficient condition for atheism. Question (2) is redundant.

>>13116609
>>13116621
PS, by introducing the second question, you're just begging the question in your favour. I just say it's completely irrelevant whatever the degree of certainty is. You either say you believe or you don't, and that's all that matters.

>>13116621
Nobody cares about how you personally want to define yourself though. Atheism as a term has, for thousands of years, meant the rejection of any god

>>13115756
Man created God. What more is there to add?

>>13116292

I didn't mean lazy and uninteresting in that way. Maybe you should refrain from jumping to conclusions if you're that bad in interpreting people's meanings.

>>13115736
Because then we'd both be wrong.

>>13115736
because i went to catholic school for 12 years and it's impossible for me to entertain the idea that god doesn't exist.

i don't practice and i don't identify as catholic. but theism has its hooks in me so much so that i will probably always be a theist of some kind.

>>13115736
I believe in all religions simultaneously instead of none.
There may not be a good reason to prefer any one over another but with this system I'm bound to reap the rewards of the afterlife.

>>13115736
take a guess

>>13116000
terrible take
read Kierkegaard

>>13116359
Prove it

>>13117131
>he doesn't know about the non-compete clauses
enjoy spending eternity in every hell

>>13116827
meanings have words, not the other way around.

A million things all pointing to one thing.

>>13115780
I mean, assuming a prime mover really did start the universe, that still doesn't mean that such a being affects our lives in the slightest, or is even still around.

>>13116060
>t. slave moralist

>>13115756
I can find truth in many of the ideas of Buddhism
The spiritual stuff is iffy but I think the dude mostly knew what he was talking about

>>13115736
hume and epicurus are the only remotely based members of that image

no one has a good enough answer but there is a lot to work with

>>13117168
t. never read his journals

>>13116000
this. No self-respecting Christian would fully admit that the belief in Christianity is just a cope.

>>13116314
what if we, ourselves, infinitely restart this chain in the eternal reoccurrence, and time is circular?

>>13117230
oh sorry, I can't interperate you because you don't believe in aligning your diction with others.