/lit/ - Literature

Agnostics tend to write about other things than religion.

>>2521306
>are there any good books on agnosticism?
dohohoho

It's seriously 20 fucking 12 and people still don't realize atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.

just read the god delusion and the bible simultaneously, balance it out
the god delusion is full of some pretty convincing arguments though. it puts into words all the things you want to say when someone flaps their mouth about religion

gullible idiots brainwashed to hate the church

Not exactly about agnosticism, but Chris Hedges' "I Don't Believe in Atheists" and Terry Eagleton's "After Theory" both do a good job of dismantling neo-atheist dogmas,

anything sagan wrote concerning religion from from the point of view of an agnostic. and do you know what? there's no fucking difference between that and atheist literature. agnostics are atheists, you prick. fuck you, for bringing this argument here. I left /sci/ and /b/ to escape this tedious bullshit.

>>2521427
respectable atheists also include matthew arnold, bertrand russell and, I think, joseph campbell but I could be wrong on that one.

For people who hate religion, they sure come close to being a religion themselves, with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as their prophets.

Before anyone gets butthurt about that, I'm not saying that atheism is a religion. I'm saying that there seems to be a growing group within the larger atheist community that treats their non-belief that way.

>>2521443
This is both new and refreshing. I have never witnessed this observation or critique before. You boring pissant.

Is there a word for someone who just doesnt give a shit?

>>2521464
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

>>2521449
Get fucked, faggot.

>>2521443
I have to applaud religious people. not only have they monopolised beauty, art and wonder for the longest time, but they also still hold a monopoly on all forms of passion to the extent that whenever someone expresses strong emotion they can be said to behaving in a religious way. religion is exclusively concerned with affirming god. religion is nothing else. I'm not even saying this in defence of atheism but just for some clarity. what could be interesting discussions have all intellectual promise sucked out of them when people completely miss the point and start with these false equivalencies that sound like the retarded phrase 'i don't have enough faith to be an atheist

>>2521464
kidding themselves

>>2521475
now look who's mad. olololol

>>2521492
>kidding themselves

I don't know, having just this minute read the wiki article (lol) on Apatheism, it makes some nice points I'm inclined to agree with.

>>2521499
the very fact that you searched and read that shows you are not apathetic to the discussion. everyone has an opinion.

>>2521464
a phlebotomist

>>2521443
Religion without religion. The idea that dogmatic thought is religious thought goes back Hume, no doubt earlier too.

used a ouija board
blocked that memory out of my atheist mind for awhile

>>2521439
1. You're being an asshole, and you need to chill out;
2. There is more than one way (read: more than your way) of defining belief systems, and I know plenty of agnostics/atheists who would be irritated if you insisted that they were something they felt they weren't

>>2521306
I think it's fucking hilarious how everyone who clings to the virtue of reason (and to the extent of having a rally around it) appear to be some of the most bent-out-of-shape, irrationally motivated people I've ever seen. Reason becomes "boo religion! Religion is for dumb people! Blargh!" Honestly I can't believe these losers take themselves seriously.

>>2521306
Reason Rally?
Is that church for self-proclaimed athiests or something?

Why would there be books on Agnosticism?

Every chapter would be:

>The Agnostic on God: I Don't Know
>The Agnostic on Faith: I Don't Know
>The Agnostic on Circumcision: I Don't Know
>The Agnostic on Spiritual Development: I Don't Know
>The Agnostic on Russel's Teapot: Never Read It

>>2523053
Kind of like how everything in every atheistic book is:
>God doesn't exist
>God doesn't exist
>God doesn't exist

And everything in every theistic book is:
>God exists
>God exists
>God exists
right?

>>2523058
Hey, at least they have something to argue in favor for.

>>2523070
Uncertainty is something to argue for.

Agnosticism is for fence sitters who are too afraid of having convictions in their own beliefs and of the resulting consequences. A person taking up agnosticism is indicative of their wishy-washy personality. They are kind of people who suck at making critical decisions, afraid of risks, and making it big in life.

>>2523004
I managed the transition to atheist a couple of years ago. Once I did, it became obvious how religion works, that so much of it is utterly ridiculous, and that its followers are deliberately being dumb, and proud of it.

So that's why. It's as simple as that. No deeper motives.

>>2523082
0/10 just try and troll me faggot

Agnosticism says nothing about personality or motive. You could just as easily argue that agnosticism says that an individual has the grace to accept that there are unknowns in life.

>>2523082
0/10

>>2523084
atheism is just as much a religion, and once you abandon christian morals, they turn you amoral evil shit like humanism.

>>2523084
There certainly are deeper motives for frumpy young people gathering and holding signs that fuse internet memes and mockery of religion for nobody in particular except the internet to see.

ITT: people argue about wikipedia articles

>>2523088
Why do Agnostics have to believe that the big unknown is some all-powerful God instead of something less corny like a computer simulation? I know, it's fear. It's the fear from uncertainty. Fear of being wrong. Agnostics are using Agnosticism as a safety net. In case God does exist, they hope that their punishment after death won't go beyond purgatory.

>>2523103
No, I just really don't know. I can accept that. Sorry you're wrong. God can be a computer program for all I know.

I don't know...

>>2521443

Ironically their 'non-belief' is actually a belief that they trust in with faith thus making them theists and their whole perspective backwards. I myself don't believe in a god. My father is a leader in one of the largest athiest organisations and through my exposure to that I see many of the 'athiest' believers shortcomings in it's crudest form.

I believe the term athiest does not fit this group at all and should be disowned. I do not believe in god but that does not make me an athiest.

>>2521306

OP this book might interest you

Actually, not believing in god does in fact make you an atheist.

related: i'm religious and i want aetheists to shut the fuck up and leave my beliefs alone

is there a polite way to do this?

>>2523262
>Ironically their 'non-belief' is actually a belief
ok so far....

>that they trust in with faith
No, faith is believing in something without evidence. I don't believe there is a dragon hiding in my closet, that doesn't mean i have "faith" there is no dragon. It is up to the people making a positive claim ("there is a god, there is a dragon in your closet") to provide evidence.

>thus making them theists
look up the meaning of the word "theist." A theist is someone who believes in a deity. If you don't believe in a god, then you cannot be a theist.

>My father is a leader...
no offense but it seems like your emotions re: your father are muddling your thinking.

>>2523262
theist is not characterised by 'nonbelief'. All you've done is utter a contradiction worded to make it sound like you have something insightful to contribute

>>2523274
Ignore them and go about your life. (full disclosure, i'm an atheist) You may want them to shut the fuck up, and I sympathize, but as long as you realize that they have the same right to proselytize their beliefs that you do, you're fine in my book.

>>2523274
Yes. Plug your fingers into your ear and go, "Lalalalala. No listning. Lalalalala."

>>2523280
might makes right, filthy atheist

>>2523280
maybe it's because i'm not from a religion that has a history of proselytizing (full disclosure, i'm jewish) but that has never appealed to me. but seriously i have friends who get their panties in a bunch if i tell them "god bless you," when they sneeze

>>2523281
i wish. belief is one those things where you do or you don't. that's it.

>>2523324
>making friends with wankers
i thought jews were smart

If you read the god delusion, you'll see why agnosticism is just a faggot's middle-point. It's to say: I don't identify myself as an agnostic of unicorns, but i am of a god because I don't want god to hate me if he is real...

and... your roommate or what ever will come down of it soon and accept that some people find comfort in their ignorance

Agnosticism is philosophical suicide.

>>2523407
Nope, it is a form of scepticism, which is probably the most important aspect of philosophy.

>>2523444
eh, are you agnostic about Zeus? are you agnostic about time traveling dragons? no, because there's no evidence for them so there's no need to reserve judgement regarding their existence. you just assume they don't exist until you have evidence. why should your belief/non belief of God be any different?

>>2523494
I'm thorough in my scepticism, so yes, I am agnostic about all those things and everything. Of course I do have a practical bias, so I live my life as if those entities do not exist. But actual conviction seems to be to me a form of intellectual dishonesty or weakness.

>>2523444
true and in that way, it's a form of atheism. suck it agnostic fags. look at me perpetuating this riot like a crazy motherfucker

>>2523407
>philosophical suicide

I don't think that means what you think it means.

>>2523513
>actual conviction seems to be to me a form of intellectual dishonesty or weakness.

yes of course all knowledge is conditional but that doesn't mean that you can't have beliefs. it's like you're trying to use a scientific mindset but failing. knowing that you may have to change your beliefs in the face of future evidence doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and say "well, anything goes", that's lazy and intellectually dishonest (by this i mean that you clearly act as if you believe one thing ["Of course I do have a practical bias, so I live my life as if those entities do not exist"] but claim to believe in another. Instead you stake out your beliefs and have conviction and certainty in them while understanding that yes, future evidence may change them, but in the lack of that evidence it's not dishonest or lazy to have them.

>>2523540
I rather suspend judgement and be all ataraxic and such. It doesn't seem like a real difference, but I think the psychological difference between conviction and non-committal assumption are grave enough to classify myself as a sceptic instead of someone who experiences certainty in conditional knowledge.

>>2523525
>true and in that way, it's a form of atheism

>not knowing whether there is a cucumber inside a box is the same as believing there isn't one

Okay.

>>2523547
yeah, i see what you're saying, and while i may not think the same way i can at least see where you're coming from and respect it. i have more respect for someone who's agnostic about 2+2=4, the tooth fairy, and god than someone who has committed beliefs/nonbeliefs in the first two but is agnostic in the third.

First I recommend this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html

He is painfully wrong about a couple of things, but overall he has the right idea.

One example of where he is wrong is in the approach to religion. I believe it is important to enter study of religion with an open mind i.e. leave the possibility of your personal belief in the religion open. It makes a huge difference if you put a little effort forth to simply try to believe in it.

All scientists should believe in God. Throw out all of your pre-conceived notions of what the word ``God" means to you, and think of this from a purely scientific perspective.

In fact, the existence God has been deduced scientifically since before Plato's time as he makes mention of this deduction in The Republic, and then the deduction is codified in Aristotle's Metaphysics:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html

Before idiots reply and say that this is not science, please recognize that it is logic, logic is a subset of philosophy, and philosophy is a subset of science.

Further reading on this last bit can be found here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/4vr/less_wrong_rationality_and_mainstream_philosophy/

>>2523617
This is bullshit and you are apparently too stupid or uneducated or self-deluded to see why.

>>2523550
not knowing that there is a cucumber in a box is a state of not believing that there is one, unles you don't know but believe in which case you'd be a theist. there is only atheism and theism. please think these things out fully before wording them . i really can't be arsed responding every time. but i do anyway because i care about you.

>>2523617
LOL

>>2523626
Explain, please.

>>2523629
>not knowing that there is a cucumber in a box is a state of not believing that there is one

It is also a state of not believing that there isn't one. There is more than atheism and theism because people are capable of lacking convictions concerning a certain subject. I'm agnostic in the outcome of the world championship of curling for females, for example.

>>2523633
[sarcasm]
Thank you for your thoughtful input.
[/sarcasm]

>>2523617
Science is a derivative of philosophy. Don't try to make the boss the bitches bitch bitchy bitch.

>>2523617
> philosophy is a subset of science

other way round, nigger.

> the existence God has been deduced scientifically

it has been deduced philosophically, but only in the form of presupposition.
to deduce something scientifically is to prove it empirically since empiricism is the philosophy of science.

>>2523638

Nope you're still not fully considering what you are saying.

not believing that something isn't is still a state of not believing. not believing on the whole, not just not believing on the affirmative or the negative, is what atheism is. lacking conviction is a condition of absence of belief. it is only atheism. agnosticism is weak/soft atheism. it is still atheism, not a third position.

>the existence God has been deduced scientifically since before Plato's

Jesus christ. There's a lot of stupid in this post but I think this takes the cake. Yes, the scientific method existed before Plato and it was used to prove the existance of God. Please dude, take a class or something before you run around trying to sound smart.

Existentialist books are pretty good, they talk about living life without the assumption of there being a god, but they dont get in-your-face about it either.

>>2523648
Atheism is the actively denying the existence of God or deities, not merely a lack of believe. Atheism is the believe that there are no gods. It's a conviction. Agnosticism is the lack of both this and the active believe in god(s).

It isn't as black and white as you think. Refraining from judgement is a possibility. You are saying that if I'm not convinced that Barcelona will win a football match against Milan, I'm automatically convinced that Milan will win. While in reality I hold no conviction in the matter whatsoever.

>>2523660
>Atheism is the actively denying the existence of God or deities, not merely a lack of believe. Atheism is the believe that there are no gods.

No and double no. It, literally, means without belief in a god/deity. Stop perpetuating this nonsense.

>Agnosticism is the lack of both this and the active believe in god(s).

Agnosticism is in the realm of Epistemology, not Ontology. Unless the self-proclaimed Agnostic announces a positive affirmation of belief in a deity, he/she is an Atheist [Agnostic Atheist]. Failing to accept this is just the continuing cowardice of self-proclaimed Agnostics that fear the baggage of Atheism.

>>2523660
Etymologically and semantically, the most common and agreeable definition of atheism is 'disbelief' in god, stemming from a- 'without' theism 'god'. Disbelief is not one or the other, it can be either lack of faith or inability to have faith, or outright refusal and conviction against faith. . The difference you speak of between atheism and agnosticism is actually the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. The actual difference between atheism and agnostic is the difference between belief and knowledge. While I accept in common parlance, 'agnostic' is often used to man weak atheism (such as when sagan spoke) and 'atheist' is often used to mean strong atheism (as Dawkins), we should also recognise that 'atheist' can mean weak atheism also. For the sake of clarity should stick to this 'weak/soft' divide rather than confusing it into an 'agnostic/atheist' divide especially since that would artificial and superfluous as agnostics don't believe in God. The fact that they don't not believe in God is an unnecessary distinction that is already acknowledged when we consider the ful of extent of atheism rather than pigeonholing them.

I'm glad to help.

>>2523650
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/chronicle/v6/my7/byrne.html
>followers of Aristotle saw science as a means of deducing eternal truths

>>2523648
>to deduce something scientifically is to prove it empirically since empiricism is the philosophy of science
And empiricism is predicated by the assumption that we live in a logical universe. See: dicutm de omni et nullo to understand the implications of this.

For the non atheists/agnostics:

Why should I believe in God? Is there any evidence for its existence?

>>2523676
no.

logic and rationalism is 'predicated by the assumption that we live in a logical universe'.

empiricism is only predicated on the assumption that sense experience is valid.

god is a sound idea logically and rationally, but it is not backed up evidentially. That's why you're appeal to science is false. It should be an appeal to rationalism.

>>2523670
I was talking about the popular meaning of the word of course. The use of words isn't always literal. The word agnostic is used in religious debate for a reason, because there is a need for a term that describes people that are neither actively affirming or denying the existence of deities.

You can be stubborn and say that according to your definition they are technically atheists but this makes the debate more confusing and isn't very useful.

Scepticism on both accounts (existence and non-existence of deities) remains a valid third position. Your system of classification doesn't leave room for someone who affirms neither of two opposites in any discussion. You're presenting atheism as a default position, whereas there is no default position before a statement is made on a subject other than neutrality.

>>2523679
Non agnostic/athiest here.
Have you seen any evidence to suggest there is?

>>2523679
Is there any evidence for yours?

If there any reason to believe sensory experience is a sound base of affirming the existence of things?

These threads are now common enough that I am developing a paranoid delusion that they are all made by one person who's only goal is to make sure that I don't get to discuss literature.

>>2523680
>empiricism is only predicated on the assumption that [a single] sense experience [at a single, irreproducible point in time] is valid
FTFY

And now we are back to my original point. If you are a scientist, then you believe in the value of science, ergo we live in a logical universe.

>>2523703
But solving the problem of induction isn't based on logic. Science isn't reason. Empiricism is different from rationalism. God can be propped up by rationalism (if you keep it vague enough), but it can't be justified by empiricism/science.

>>2523713
I will admit that there is justification for not believing in God, but it can only come from
(A) rejecting Newton's third law, or
(B) rejecting logic.

If (A), then one is not a scientist. If (B), then one is not a scientist.

>>2523743
Newton's third law was thrown aside the moment quantum mechanics was discovered. Are quantum physicists not scientists now?

>>2523747
>implying we fully understand quantum mechanics

>>2523754
Our lack of full understanding is all the more reason not to hold empirical laws, such as Newton's, as inviolate.

>>2523682
Not that guy.
Except that the agnostic position is a nonposition in the realm of public discourse. If we want to define categories of people in terms of belief, then literal meanings are the best way to go, but I understand that the religion debate is also a political construct and defining interest groups makes sense. The problem is that on any substantive issue related to religion, there are really only ever 2 positions. There are atheists, arguing for a particular agenda related to secular humanism or rationalism or what have you, and there are theists, arguing for compassionate conservatism or family values or what have you. Agnostics don't have a lobby, they don't have representatives in discourse and they don't have an agenda. Why? Because their entire position is "lol didn't read you guys are taking this too seriously." These issues matter. They matter because we are attempting as a society to decide what principles should guide our actions and how people should think when making laws, educating children and making moral decisions. There is no time to be spared for the indecisive, and while we can't stop you from refusing to take a position, we are fully within our rights to take umbrage when you decide that makes you a better person.

>>2523757
My mistake. I incorrectly assumed that since it is still referred to as a `Law' it still holds true.

Interesting. You learn something new every day.

>>2523747
One could make the argument that quantum physicists are not scientists, but rather mathematicians posing as scientists.

>>2523776
One would have to ignore all the experimental work they do in order to make such an argument, but sure.

>>2523760
Agnostics can still have a preference for a secular or religious society for other reasons than religious ones. One can even be an atheist that prefers a hardcore theocracy as means to a goal. I'd say agnostics are still very much part of this debate.

>>2523800
>that feel when voting socialist because being a poor egoist who doesn't care for socialist ideology at all but supports them for personal benefit

>>2523760

As an agnostic I do have a position. I think it doesn't matter one bit if there is a god. I don't care if someone believes in god or doesn't but keep it to yourself. Law and morality should be fucking simple. Does something hurt other people? Circle yes or no. If yes don't do it.

>>2523819
Only dogs are colorblind.
If only it was that simple

>>2523800
Not as a part of public discourse. Take your atheist who desires a theocracy as a means to an end. In terms of authenticity, he is an atheist. And if we were talking about the definition of atheism, we should do so in literal terms. In terms of public discourse, he is a theist. Identity in discourse is defined by the position that you take. Agnostics do not have a position. Their argument amounts to "we don't know, and neither do you", so they by definition do not have any deliberative agenda or position. As far as politics goes, you can either act like there is a god, act like there isn't a god. You can't not act, because politics exist in a continuum and in a given context, say US national politics, failure to act amounts to taking the theistic position (at least for the time being).

>>2523743
I already admitted that scientists freely skip over logic when doing induction. science isn't logical but it helps us. and of course deduction isn't strictly logical either since you can't have the general laws that requires without first depending on induction.

the key thing to remember here is that logic isn't logical. logic is imperfect. because we're imperfect beings. the inherent unreasonableness of human reason of all kinds says something our place in this world. the universe is absurd and never meant to coincide with our ambitions. luckily in some instances it does but w shouldn't assume forever and we shouldn't assume our reasoning is perfect representation of the world. we should take these problems seriously.

god is justified in all sorts of ways: logically by way of Aquinas and otherwise by way of fideism . but at no point is it justified by science because empiricism is neither logic nor fideism.

god is believed in independently of deduction or induction because in effect even Aquinas' logic assumed stuff from the outset, as per the Münchhausen Trilemma.

acknowledging all of this, we realise that faith comes first in everything. you have to stress something from the outset before you embark on something in which you can strive for at most internal consistency.

>>2523837
2/2

In this way, everyone places their faith in induction. and only then does deduction, logic and rationalism follow. at the same time, some place their faith in god and from that follows nothing without induction followed by deduction and the logic of Aquinas. One can hold simultaneous faiths in empiricism and god quite easily but the accompanying logic that flows outward from that is the tricky part. That's where it becomes notoriously difficult to keep internal consistency in both those faiths, unless you limit the logical path of one of them.

you either hold faith in empiricism but stop doing everything right there (say at science) and follow the logical path for god knowing that without the hurdles of sense experience to navigate, you can complete a full consistent vision of god.

or you hold faith in god, but go no further and stop it at an early stage (say as 'cause'), in order to induce and deduce in perfect harmony

or you follow both faiths of empiricism and god only to have real difficulty with path dependencies and conflicts preventing you gaining logical consistency in either.

>>2523819
>As an agnostic I do have a position. I think it doesn't matter one bit if there is a god.

So, do you, or do you not, believe in a deity? Yes or no. Replying with "I don't know" or "I don't care" is negative affirmation. We can go from here as to whether you're an Agnostic Pan/Th/Deist or Agnostic Atheist.

>>2523847

Neither. I don't see why that is so hard for someone to understand.

>>2523839
>>2523837
First, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

>we're imperfect beings. the inherent unreasonableness of human reason of all kinds says something our place in this world ... we shouldn't assume our reasoning is perfect representation of the world
Does this not open the door for fideism? A certain degree of faith is required of a sane person. One would not be able to operate in the world with absolutely no faith in anything other than his own empiricism. He would either do nothing, become insane, be killed, or any combination of these.

>acknowledging all of this, we realise that faith comes first in everything. you have to stress something from the outset before you embark on something in which you can strive for at most internal consistency.
Is this what you are saying here?

>you either hold faith in empiricism but stop doing everything right there (say at science) and follow the logical path for god knowing that without the hurdles of sense experience to navigate, you can complete a full consistent vision of god.
A vision of god through empiricism?

>or you hold faith in god, but go no further and stop it at an early stage (say as 'cause'), in order to induce and deduce in perfect harmony
This is what I advocate, even if only from a strictly consequentialist philosophy: It denies you virtually nothing and opens a multitude of spiritual doors for you.

As an atheist, I dislike 'movement atheism'.

That is all.

>>2523879
What people "aren't getting" is that your position is fundamentally illogical. When confronted with a proposition, denying the proposition isn't an option. Any factual statement (rather than a statement of degree) is either true or false. To say a thing is neither true nor false is an incoherent, irrational statement. You can often claim a false dichotomy (for example, if someone asks you "Is this an apple or an orange" while holding a banana), but not when dealing with a simple proposition (i.e. "Do banana's exist?"). This is because both positions deal with the truth value of a specific statement. If the logical statement T is "God exists", the theist position, then the atheist position ("God does not exist") is not A, some unrelated proposition. It is ~T. The inverse. In accordance with the most basic rules of propositional logic, the statement Tv~T can be constructed, expressing the relationship between the two.

In practice, of course, you are left with no choice but to act in accordance with what you believe is true. No matter what your position, you are unlikely to walk blindfolded onto the highway, because you believe that a car is likely to hit you. For the same reason, you are likely to eat ice cream you buy at the store because you do not believe that it is poisoned.

In your life, you make decisions, based on your belief or lack of belief in a particular characterization of god. Perhaps you eschew alcohol or use birth control. And you might do that for a multitude of reasons. Nevertheless, whether or not god exists is one of them. If you believe he exists, you are more likely to eschew alcohol and less likely to use birth control and vice versa. If you don't think about it at all when making your decisions, you lack the belief in god, and are thus an atheist.

>>2521417
As I see it in many places there's lots of reasons to hate religion.

Little reason to act it out on the religious people though. Rather than the people in power.

There's no reason to hate atheists however, unless they act poorly. Yet there's lots of nuts going after atheists...

>>2523944

All of those fruits are known to exist. If someone were to ask me if I thought there were moons orbiting Pluto other than Charon 10 years ago I would say I do not know. We have since discovered more, now I know there are more. I would not have been wrong in my answer 10 years ago.

>>2523968
I just dropped in to say you are a coward. You are also one of those people who think they are smarter than they actually are. You know, in your heart of hearts, whether or not you believe in God.

>>2523984

I don't think I am very smart, that is why I am willing to admit I do not know the answer to the question. I hope some day to find an answer to the question, I haven't yet.

>>2523989
>I don't think I am very smart

>>2523984 is still right. This is proven by the fact that you're confusing "smart" with "knowledgeable."

>>2523968
I'm not arguing whether it is possible to know with any certainty that there is or isn't a god, that a banana is or isn't a banana, or that Charon is or isn't Pluto's only moon.

I'm arguing that "I don't know" isn't a position. In my original post, I was arguing that it isn't a political position, which is a stronger argument, but now I'm arguing that it isn't a rational one either. It cannot under any circumstances drive a purposeful activity.

>>2523997

Yes, I agreed. I am not smart enough to figure out the answer to this question. Props to everyone smarter that is.

these people who mock the "edgy teen" atheists and "movement" atheists come from an insular world of being middle/upper class, urban, college educated, posting on nerd boards etc where religion barely exists, where it's very obvious and cliche to point out that religious belief is absurd... they ignore the massive and often harmful influence it has on our culture so they can feel superior to corny arrogant jackasses such as "the amazing atheist" (a person i would love to punch in the face)
and that to me is a far more condescending and myopic position than even the flying spaghetti monster wielding, god delusion reading, metal shirt wearing, snicker at the rednecks crowd

i proudly support any and all anti-religious efforts. christianity, islam, hinduism, and even buddhism should be considered as eccentric and marginal as scientology and new age seminars in the public mind, and as outmoded as sumerian mysticism

of course the big problem is that no one has yet presented any narratives more compelling than those of the major world religions or even the shitty tiny ones. scientific humanism is too vague to cut it for most... people need something more powerful, not everyone's a jaded aesthete

ITT: theists and atheists show how they are exactly the same.

>hurr, i have the universally right answer.
>durr, no i do.

lrn2heidegger so that you aren't just stuck perpetuating this ontotheological vomit.

>>2524053
Bumping to say thank you. I think a lot of the people who mock the "movement atheists" have never been told they are literally evil and need to be tortured for all eternity because they are gay, or have been told they need to go back to their abusive husbands because of the bible, or have been on the receiving end of organized violence fueled by religious hatred.

>>2524071
hmm yes south park-style equivocation, that sure is unexpected in this thread. and you name-dropped somebody too!

>Not reading the Perennial Philosophy
>Not cultivating a higher spiritualism founded in the unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

>>2524071
atheists don't have a universal answer. several atheists do, but it doesn't come from atheism it comes from biology or physics. i'm not saying it's any truer than an answer from theism but just clearing up the point that no theory comes out of atheism alone

>>2524053
>no one has yet presented any narratives more compelling than those of the major world religions...scientific humanism is too vague to cut it for most... people need something more powerful

/tg/ has the answer...ask them if you would like to know more.

>>2524082
I think we can define god as: the ultimate meaning to the universe. (this can be yahweh, jesus, acquiring money, any single thing).

monotheists think that there is an ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

atheists think that there is no ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

I think too often when people (theistic and scientific) argue about god they are arguing a 5 year olds definition of god, i.e. how the universe began, father in the sky, etc. But there are more mature definitions of the ontology of god(s).

>>2523912
the first is the extremist, rejecting medicine and waging war on baseless prejudices

the atheist is the middle, taking god as unknown or irrelevant or as logically justified up to a point

the third is moderate christian chopping and changing his idea of god to to fit what he's experiencing. or standing stubborn on preconditioned ideas in spite of observations and experience.

>>2524098
personally, I'm swayed towards the second entirely and halfway toward the third

>>2524097
I know you're trolling, but I'll bite. You are wrong and your post shows sloppy thinking.

>I think we can define god as: the ultimate meaning to the universe. (this can be yahweh, jesus, acquiring money, any single thing).

No. The definition of god you are using here is so vague as to be nonsensical. God is a deity, traditionally defined as having certain aspects such as omnipotence, omniscience, some sense of "mind", being the Creator, etc. People can argue about these particular aspects but the definition you are using is so vague as to be nonsensical. We can define god as "human society" or "the cat in my lap" or "176.2" but that doesn't mean these definitions have any coherence or value. By defining god in this way you are using the term god as a cipher with no real meaning. It also seems like you are confusing God the deity with the metaphor people use when they say someone treats something like god (i.e., when someone says about someone "money is his god," they mean that money is as important to that person as god, not that money is his deity. No theist would support the definition you use here, nor would anyone else, as you just made it up.

>monotheists think that there is an ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

No. This is an example of how your sloppy thinking leads you into error. A monotheist is someone who believes in one god (defined as a deity, not your idiosyncratic, useless, meaningless definition). The word means no more and no less. It is possible to believe in no gods, or 12, or 1000, and still believe there is an ultimate meaning in the universe.

>>2524144
continued in response to >>2524097

>atheists think that there is no ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

No. Again, you are just redefining words, making up definitions for them out of thin air. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any god. It is possible for an atheist to believe there is an ultimate meaning to the universe (for example, the meaning is to learn, to help each other, etc.). This is another example of your clumsy reasoning and of how your arbitrary re-definitions are useless.

>I think too often when people (theistic and scientific)

You are setting up a false equivalency between "theistic" and "scientific." People may disagree about the validity of being both at once, but nobody can deny someone like Newton was both.

>But there are more mature definitions of the ontology of god(s).

Yes, but your definitions are not "mature" they are just stupid.

I know i've spent too long responding to a troll, and doing so made me burn the bacon i was cooking, but hopefully somebody who, for a microsecond, considered his post to be valid will see this.

>>2524144
>certain aspects such as omnipotence, omniscience, some sense of "mind", being the Creator, etc.

That is too specific and very localized to Western thought.

I'll elaborate on my "vague/nonsensical" definition. i know, it's tuff :'( lolol:

God has always essentially meant lord, i.e. one who owns and thus reigns over. Whatever has the most authority determines the intelligibility of everything: what's good/bad, holy/unholy, shows the history of a people and their origins/usually lets them know of their future, etc.

In this sense a God can be seen as opening up a world for a people.

>confusing God the deity with the metaphor people use when they say someone treats something like god (i.e., when someone says about someone "money is his god," they mean that money is as important to that person as god, not that money is his deity.
>No theist would support the definition you use here, nor would anyone else, as you just made it up.

Sure they would, with 'God' himself saying not to have any other gods before me in the 10 commandments. Not having yourself, money or sex as your god has always been a regular topic in church sermons.

>>2524150
>atheists think that there is no ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.
>(for example, the meaning is to learn, to help each other, etc.).

No true atheist would say the absolute universal truth/meaning to the universe is to learn or whatever... That can't be grounded on anything but an opinion.

CONTINUING>>2524198

Gods open up a world for a people. What makes the gods present are works of art working.

So the polytheist would say that there is no ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves), but nor is the world meaningless (outside of ourselves). There is a variety of meaning outside of ourselves. There are a variety of ways that works of art can and have opened up worlds.


An example of a work of art working:
- Marlyn Monroe: she shined as the star/goddess of femininity in the 50s, making intelligible what femininity was for people in the 50s.

>>2524198
>>2524220

>>2524235
>tfw lol not even trolling

typical lazy response from simple minded pleb without an answer.

>>2523103
>Why do Agnostics have to believe that the big unknown is some all-powerful God instead of something less corny like a computer simulation?

what the fuck? i don't believe in some all powerful God, I believe it could just as well be a computer simulation or just consciousness eternally evolving.

what teh fuck is wrong with you?

typical atheist idiocy

>>2523101
wikipedia is a great source of information and knowledge

what's your point?