[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 600x400, God.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554303 No.5554303 [Reply] [Original]

>being an atheist or theist

Shiggidy diggidy ma niggidy

You can't know nor can you know. The only true way is to be an agnostic.

>> No.5554314
File: 86 KB, 800x600, ugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554314

>>5554303
How's high school treating you son?

>> No.5554322

>>5554314
Why don't you form an actual structured criticism or is your mind to feeble to do such a thing?

>> No.5554323
File: 247 KB, 513x742, 1390407748335.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554323

>>5554303
>You can't know nor can you know.

>> No.5554326

>>5554303
>failing to distinguish between belief and knowledge

>> No.5554361

I'm an agnostic Christian, just like most Christians. Unlike atheists, my scepticism exists in the ambit of my sceptical inquiry so that my sceptical recoil from the gnostic God is reflexively countered by my scepticism about this position itself, opening me to a realm of supra-rational mystical experience bringing me closer to my Lord.

>> No.5554393

>>5554303
⇒You can't know nor can you know.

But I do know. God is a logical impossibility. There is no tenable stance other than gnostic atheism.

>> No.5554406
File: 323 KB, 700x560, 1185440789968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554406

>>5554361

beautiful

>> No.5554414

>>5554303
>implying anything other than the teachings of the Christ can be called the Truth

>> No.5554416

>>5554361

i feel that

but it doesn't work for me, because i dont feel close to god

>> No.5554417

>>5554323
kek

>> No.5554418
File: 11 KB, 264x282, smirkan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554418

>>5554303
>not being a post-abrahamic occasionalist panendeist

>> No.5554419

>>5554414
⇒implying anything other than science and math can be called truth

>> No.5554425

>>5554393
what makes it a logical impossibility?
what caused the big bang?

>> No.5554433

>>5554419
you can't fool me satan

>> No.5554445

>>5554419
How do zero sum truths give any meaning to my life?

>> No.5554474

>>5554416
You are closer than you know. Closeness to God subsists in submission to your complete lack of knowledge of Him. You cannot really feel him - he is pure presence.

>> No.5554475

>>5554419
>Science
>Truth
lel, more than half of what we will leave right now is probably wrong.

>> No.5554484

>>5554419
Science ain't objective.

>> No.5554494

>>5554361
>agnostic Christian
>just like most Christians
uwotm8

>> No.5554499

>>5554303
thats being optimistic. but since i have opinions and i am rational, i am atheist.

but god knows i dont preach it, knowing that society is still sensitive on that subject.

>> No.5554518
File: 184 KB, 710x959, agnosticism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554518

>> No.5554520
File: 27 KB, 350x350, lel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554520

>>5554303
>know there's probably no such thing as a leprechaun or a unicorn
>sit on the fence as as "agnostic" anyway because you're a limp-wristed, feminine manchild who's scared of commitment

>> No.5554528

>>5554518
Well to be fair you can't, but it's better to just pretend you can.

>> No.5554541

>>5554393
> logical possibility
What?

>> No.5554546

>>5554419
>Implying truth is better than falsehood

>> No.5554552

>>5554518
Gnosticism is retarded. There are no facts in the real world, just relatively concrete theories which are nonetheless completely underdetermined and capable of radically different theorisations in different settings.

>> No.5554555

>>5554552
⇒There are no facts in the real world

Is this what philosophists actually believe? Do you even science?

>> No.5554561

>>5554555
>m-m-muh s-science

>> No.5554606

>>5554561
>m-m-muh jebus

>> No.5554641

>>5554314
great argument m8

>> No.5554709

>>5554474
>he is pure presence

This view of God is the personification of Buddha Nature. In this view it would be equally valid to call yourself God as well as everyone else. I and the Father are one, so are you.
This is the esoteric teaching of biblical mythology and the only rational explanation. Taking the exoteric stance is mistaking the metaphor of God and taking the symbol as a factual thing and not something beyond our capability to grasp wholly in a linguistic/relational manner. God is all that there is and all there can be. It is the Tao. You cannot speak of the true Tao. The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

>>5554474
>Closeness to God subsists in submission to your complete lack of knowledge of Him

I think the deeper meaning of this statement is that you must go outside the bounds of your individuality, your ego, to comprehend God more fully.

>> No.5554750

>>5554303
>You can't know nor can you know.

how do you know?

>> No.5554758

>>5554750
It's pretty much axiomatic.

>> No.5554776

wait, if there is no proof that there is God, and there is no proof that there is no God (nor can there ever be proof of either of these things) isn't committing to one or the other blatantly illogical? are you guys all just shitposters? No compelling evidence, no opinion -- right? isn't that how logic works or whatever?

for the most elitist group of turds ever to have lived, you guys are, like, pretty silly sounding

>> No.5554781

>>5554303
>You can't know
>This is the correct stance
BRAVO OP

>> No.5554799

>>5554776
>isn't committing to one or the other blatantly illogical?

Define "commit".

>> No.5554808

>>5554776
>No compelling evidence, no opinion -- right?

I believe there is a magical gremlin living inside your anus and his temperament decides the weather. Do you have no opinion on this?

>> No.5554812

>>5554799
decide to believe in.

define ultra-faggot

>> No.5554827

>>5554808
does he have no physical form? if he does, i would obviously feel him in there, so i would have compelling evidence in one direction..

if he is formless and imperceptible to my senses, then i can't really say one way or the other. i'd say the chances are slim, but, sticking to strict definitions of truth and proof, no, no opinion

>> No.5554833
File: 53 KB, 704x528, 1412721951469.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554833

I admire the ability to suspend judgment, and would like to cultivate it.

That said, for every belief, there is an element of motivation, of "wishful thinking".

So, agnostics, is there an element of wishful thinking in your position? Do you take it because you secretly hope that one school or another is true, or do you truly have no leanings?

Keep in mind that the engagement with agnosticism at least entertains the possibility of the truth of *either* "theism" *or* "atheism".

>> No.5554834

>>5554827
>i'd say the chances are slim, but, sticking to strict definitions of truth and proof, no, no opinion

Congratulations, you are for all intents and purposes an Anus Gremlin atheist.

>> No.5554835

>>5554812

Well, I actually take major issue with the concept of "deciding to believe in" something, (even assuming free will) but I think I understand.

What about tentatively committing? What about 'having a hunch' etc (assuming that one doesn't treat one's hunch as something that other people should seriously listen to).

>define ultra-faggot

"Guy who responds to sincere questions with unprompted hostility". It's actually in Webster's.

>> No.5554837

>>5554834
anus gremlin *agnostic*

>> No.5554838

>>5554837
anus gremlin *atheist*

>> No.5554842

>>5554833
>Do you take it because you secretly hope that one school or another is true

I don't understand how that makes sense. Surely, given what you've already said, secretly hoping one or the other is true would prompt them to adopt that, rather than agnosticism.

>> No.5554843

The show will either go on or it wont, folks - that's the bottom line.

>> No.5554847

>>5554837
>>5554838
>label-worshipping *anus-gremlin*

>> No.5554860

>>5554835
well that's fine i guess. i'm pretty skeptical of anus gremlins, but i'm not going to spend much time thinking about it

i just don't understand the human compulsion to argue for or against God, when the only stance that can be backed up logically is agnosticism

sorry for calling you ultra faggot. i didnt mean it

>> No.5554865

I don't know who came up with this anus gremlin thing; but, I'm lovin' it.

>> No.5554866

>>5554860
>sorry for calling you ultra faggot. i didnt mean it

I'm preparing myself to forgive you.

>> No.5554868

>>5554860
>i just don't understand the human compulsion to argue for or against God, when the only stance that can be backed up logically is agnosticism

Oh, my; it seems you've fallen in the typical-idiots trap of thinking Agnosticism is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive; AND that it's a position regarding existence of God.

Oh, dear; oh, my. The parroting of stupidity never ceases to end.

>> No.5554869

>>5554843
The show must go on

>> No.5554877

>>5554425
>what caused the big bang?
It appears to be the nature of the universe, or at least the visible universe.

>>5554561
That's no answer. "There are no facts in the real world" was an incredibly asinine thing to say. Back it up or shut it

>> No.5554887

>>5554868
could you not have said "god is or isn't; agnosticism isn't a legitimate position"

instead of 'oh my, oh my"

>> No.5554906

>>5554842
But wouldn't the sheer force of doubt have them invent "agnosticism"?

Wouldn't true suspension of belief instantiate no belief? Wouldn't they simply choose not to opine? Wouldn't they choose to remain silent? They didn't-- instead, they invented a word for it.

>> No.5554908

>>5554887
Agnosticism is a legitimate position, but it's not a position independent of theism and atheism. It's simply a statement of the conditionality of your stance on God. It's literally impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

>> No.5554909

>>5554425
Why do you suppose that the Big Bang was caused? You only know that it occurred.

>> No.5554919

>>5554518
But you can see the apples growing.

Are you retarded?

>> No.5554926

>>5554906
>They didn't-- instead, they invented a word for it.

Well yeah. I don't think there's anything weird or unusual about that.

>> No.5554929

>>5554908
>It's literally impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

This is obviously false to the point that I think you must have mis-spoken.

>> No.5554932

>>5554520
>belief in God is analogous to belief in leprechauns or unicorns

/r/atheist subscriber detected

>> No.5554933

>>5554932
Presumably he means the Abrahamic God.

>> No.5554934

>>5554303
There is no way for me to know if I'll win the lottery or not. If they're picking their random numbers properly, I cannot be certain either way.

And yet it I would not call it foolish to believe with certainty that you will never win the lottery, no matter how many tickets you buy.

>> No.5554935

>people comparing the belief in god to belief in easter bunny

Wow. How stupid can you get?

>> No.5554936

>>5554929
'Do you believe in God?' is a simple yes or no question. If your answer is not yes, it is no.

>> No.5554940

>>5554934
(This example is exaggerated to prove a point; I am far less certain of the nonexistence of a god than I am of not winning the lottery. I'd put it at like 5% confidence in God or gods.)

>> No.5554941

>>5554936
To answer 'no' to that wouldn't clarify whether you identified as agnostic or atheist.

>> No.5554943

>>5554936
>what is maybe

>> No.5554947
File: 198 KB, 500x282, m9uoociFYL1qdbad8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554947

>>5554750

>Everyone else actually knows, they're just playing dumb around you

>> No.5554950

>>5554906
>Wouldn't true suspension of belief instantiate no belief? Wouldn't they simply choose not to opine? Wouldn't they choose to remain silent? They didn't-- instead, they invented a word for it.

A word was invented for it: Atheism.

However, intellectually-dishonest idiots chose Agnosticism to mean a middle-man -- which it isn't -- because of fear from owning their Atheism and the baggage it entails.

Ironically, they are anything but silent about their position; in every thread about religion, the self-proclaimed Agnostics are first-and-foremost about shouting out their label from the mountaintops.

>> No.5554951

>>5554935
whats the difference? they are both fairy tales people sometimes believe are real

>> No.5554952

>>5554935
Depends on how you believe in God, but if you believe in the occurrence of any miracles, then it's similar to belief in the Easter Bunny.

>> No.5554954

>>5554951
The difference is God is believed to have created the universe and the easter bunny is an obvious pointless human creation.

I don't even believe in him but to compare them is child's play.

>> No.5554957

>>5554941
Answering 'no' identifies you as an atheist.

>>5554943
You cannot 'maybe' believe in something, you fucking retard. Either you do or you don't.

>> No.5554961
File: 50 KB, 720x480, 234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554961

>ctrl+f
>"faith"
>no results

What the FUCK, /lit/. And some of you claim to be theists!

>> No.5554965

>>5554950
I love being an agnostic, it seems to make you foam.

Also "intellectually-dishonest idiots" seems a little contradictory, confused and badly punctuated.

>> No.5554966

>>5554957
You're the retard thinking there is a yes or no only answer.

Do you believe in string theory? It hasn't been proven nor disproved. So to say yes or no is stupid as fuck.

Kill yourself.

>> No.5554972

>>5554954
how do you know that the Easter Bunny didn't create the universe?

>> No.5554974

>>5554941
>identify as

And here we have the real problem: identity politics.

Don't give a shit what name you slap on it. The logical response to the question "Do you believe in god?" is "No."

To take a page out of Noam "The Gravedodger" Chomsky's book, a better answer is probably "Describe to me what I'm supposed to be believing in and I'll tell you."

>> No.5554975

>>5554972
wow

>> No.5554977

>>5554936

Then you're confused about what 'agnosticism' entails.

>> No.5554978

>>5554919
>But you can see the apples growing.

can u tho?

#agnostic4lyfe

>> No.5554980

>>5554961
>Martin Luther

>> No.5554982

>>5554978
Kill yourself.

>> No.5554983

>>5554932
>implying it's not

retarded blue collar redneck detected

>> No.5554985

>>5554974
>And here we have the real problem: responding to key words and phrases like the algorithm of a 40-yo Turing Test demonstration programme

It's a super-bad problem.

>> No.5554988

>>5554303
>not being a dialectical materialist
i shiggy diggy do

>> No.5554989

>only true way
where does your truth come from niquah!?
heh

>> No.5554990

>>5554940
(This example is exaggerated to prove a point; I am far less certain of the nonexistence of a leprechaun than I am of not winning the lottery. I'd put it at like 5% confidence in leprechauns or Leprechaun.)

>> No.5554991

>Do you believe God exists?
>Not sure whether he does.
>THERE'S NO MIDDLE POSITION IDIOT

>> No.5554992
File: 618 KB, 681x864, St-Augustine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554992

>>5554980
Faith is the basis of all religious belief, even in the Scholastics. Aquinas himself begins all his inquiries from a position of faith, it's just that in Thomism faith and reason can operate in concert. But without faith, there is no Christianity, and no other religion, either.

>> No.5554993
File: 110 KB, 640x639, god tier troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554993

>> No.5554995

>>5554966
>Do you believe in string theory? It hasn't been proven nor disproved.
Whether it has been proven or disproven has absolutely no fucking bearing on whether I believe or disbelieve in it, you retard. All it does is condition my belief or disbelief. The certainty of a belief and the holding of a belief are different issues.

>> No.5554996
File: 55 KB, 225x225, heresy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5554996

>>5554954
>he doesn't believe the Easter Bunny created the universe

>> No.5555002

>>5554995

Do you believe that at midnight tomorrow your local time, the total number of grains of sand in the universe will , be odd?

>> No.5555003

>>5554977
No I am not. You are. Agnosticism is a position regarding the possibility of certain knowledge. It doesn't open up the magical possibility of 'maybe' believing in something. You are either an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. You cannot be an agnostic agnostic - it's incoherent.

>> No.5555008

>not being gnostic

Lel

>> No.5555013

>>5554985
>he lives in the 21st century and still clings to a spook that has haunted us since the dawn of the human species

Keep your narcissism and hopeful wish-fulfillment to yourself, thanks. The adults will continue using science to understand our world.

>> No.5555015

>>5555002
No, that is not a belief I hold.

>> No.5555018

>>5555003

Yeah, I'm not going to argue over labels, that way lies madness and despair. The point is that its being true of Albert that Albert does not believe at least one god exists does not establish whether Albert is an 'atheist' or an 'agnostic' where 'atheist' is held to mean 'gnostic atheist'.

I actually prefer the definition you're going with, but there's no point butting heads with people over it. When Huxley coined the term, he meant it closer to how they use it than how you do, for example. That's obviously not definitive, but usage is, and IME most people use it the slightly silly way that you're attacking.

>> No.5555024

>>5555013

Talking of 'identifying as a theist' etc has exactly no bearing on the phenomenon of "identity politics". If you think otherwise, you do not know what the phrase "identity politics" refers to, simple as.

Now shut up. You will add no value to this discussion, clearly.

>> No.5555026 [DELETED] 

>tfw I'm spiritual

Do you faggots know the difference between religion and spirituality?

>> No.5555033

>>5555015

Then I assume you believe it will be even?

>> No.5555040

agnosticism is pretty convenient and boring tbh

>> No.5555048

>>5555033
>questions of being are the same as questions of Being
>i am a retard

>> No.5555050
File: 23 KB, 300x300, 51tlHHpCK8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5555050

>>5555026
⇒Do you faggots know the difference between religion and spirituality?

For those of you who don't, please read pic related.

>> No.5555053

>2014 the year of our Lord
>believing in the big neckbeard in the sky

Seriously, grow up.

Nowhere in first world except in a chruch (and now apparently on 4chan) can you talk openly about how euphoric you are because of Jesus without at least getting a couple strange looks. Even in (non-Southern) America religion is looked upon more and more as a childish narcissism.

You should probably reflect on the fact that you're clinging to a thousands-year-old irrational mode of thinking that probably helped our ancestors rationalize about what was making that bush over there move (a predator?) but doesn't make any sense at all with the knowledge we have now. Unfortunately - and sadly - some people still desperately cling to it because they feel that without it their lives would lack meaning.

>> No.5555055

>>5555048
>i don't actually know what's going on in this conversation, but i like calling people names

>> No.5555057 [DELETED] 

>>5555053
Tl;dr

>being this much of a try hard faggot
>being this edgy
>trying THIS hard
>being this basic

1/10

>> No.5555059

>>5555024
>Talking of 'identifying as a theist' etc has exactly no bearing on the phenomenon of "identity politics".

Sounds like you have no idea what the words "identity" and "politics" mean.

>> No.5555067

>>5555050
Sam Harris is a dimwit.

>> No.5555071

>>5555059

It may very well sound like that to someone who doesn't know what "identity politics" refers to.

>> No.5555073

>>5555057
You seem upset. There's no need to be upset.

>> No.5555077 [DELETED] 

>>5555067
REKT

>> No.5555078

>>5555071
>someone who doesn't know what "identity politics" refers to.

Someone like yourself.

>> No.5555081 [DELETED] 

>>5555073
>implying

Who are you trying to impress, faggot?
This is an Indonesian cartoon image board; Why are you posting your high school -tier intellect here?

Underage faggot detected

>> No.5555084

>>5554528

It's always possible that we simply don't know.

>> No.5555087

>>5555078
>NO U

Go to bed.

>> No.5555088

>>5555026
>tfw you realize the entire modern concept of 'religion' is a Protestant invention

>> No.5555092

>>5555081
>all this namecalling
>all this projection
>implying you're not mad as fuck

Calm down, son. It's not the end of the world. Formulate your thoughts like a big boy.

>> No.5555096 [DELETED] 
File: 44 KB, 418x434, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5555096

>>5555088
>implying

Do u even Zoroastrianism?

>> No.5555097

>>5555087
>doesn't know what identity politics are
>calls someone out for using it correctly and exposes his own ignorance in the process

We done here?

>> No.5555099

>arrowfag failed to get into STEM
>continues to spread her STEM shit

A case of Stockholm syndrome, I see.

>> No.5555108

>>5555099
>her

>> No.5555110

>>5554995

People are capable of suspending belief.

>> No.5555113

>>5555108
>hurr

>> No.5555114 [DELETED] 

>>5555092
>m-muh name fag feelings

I, too, don't believe in God. However, that doesn't mean that I think atheists, in general, are more idiotic than religious folk-- ie you. What's the point of condescending those who are religious?

You're some pseudo-intellectual who thinks he fathoms everything. Why are you so inclined to be a faggot?

Nothing you say, do, whatever, will abolish religion.

Honestly, my jimmies are rustled because I've never read such a stupid post.

>> No.5555115

>>5555099
>everyone on /lit/ wasn't smart enough to make it in STEM
>spends their days reading nonsense and discussing U CANT NO NUFFIN

>> No.5555118 [DELETED] 

>>5555114
>all these grammatical mistakes

I wish I wasnt banned on my computer

>> No.5555120

>>5555097
>Identity politics are political arguments that focus upon the interest and perspectives of groups that people identify with. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations.

Once you compare and contrast with 'identifying as an atheist' in the sense of 'referring to oneself as an atheist in appropriate contexts' then yeah, we can pretty much stick a fork in 'er.

>> No.5555121

>>5555110
That is just a cowardly way of saying people are capable of disbelieving without admitting it to themselves.

>> No.5555124

>>5555121

Do you believe that at midnight tomorrow, your local time, the total number of grains of sand in the universe will be even?

>> No.5555126

>>5555114
>What's the point of condescending those who are religious?

I wasn't being condescending at all. Whatever hurt feelings you're suffering as a result of what I posted is of your own doing.

Criticism is not condescension, and this is something certain people have a hard time understanding. I never said all religious folk, or even religious people in general were idiotic. I simply said belief in a deity is irrational. We all hold some irrational beliefs; doesn't mean the person is stupid.

>You're some pseudo-intellectual who thinks he fathoms everything.

Putting words in my mouth, and also possibly projection.

>Nothing you say, do, whatever, will abolish religion.

Whoever said anything about abolishing religion?

>> No.5555128 [DELETED] 

I'm atheist, but I'm accepting of religions. Why can't the rest of you faggots be, too?

>inb4 faggot

All you faggots are obviously incompetent, which is why you can only study liberal arts degrees.

Stay basic.

>> No.5555131 [DELETED] 

>>5555126
>implying that I actually read your post
>implying that I didn't just assume what you wrote

Fite me irl, faggot

Captcha: anon is a closest faggot

>> No.5555132

>>5555120
>Examples include social organizations based on race, class, religion, gender, ethnicity, ideology, nation, sexual orientation, culture, information preference, history, musical or literary preference, medical conditions, professions or hobbies.

If you're going to frantically skim the wiki article after being called out at least do it properly.

Look son, the point remains: debating whether or not you want to call yourself an atheist or an agnostic isn't interesting to me because it's semantic pedantry. Describe to me what I should be believing in and I'll tell you.

>> No.5555133

>>5555121

I fail to see how it is cowardly to assume that you do not know. Life is not a multiple choice quiz. You have the option to withhold judgement.

>> No.5555135

>>5555128
This is about God not religion faggot.

>> No.5555136

>>5555132
>social organizations

Among which saying "Yes, I am an atheist" when asked does not number.

>Look son, the point remains

Mmm, yeah, change that subject. Good segue. Seamless. The perfect crime.

>> No.5555137

>>5555124
No, that's not a belief that I hold.

Also this is a horrible analogy. I'm already aware of the existence of sand. We're talking about at unfalsifiable deity.

>> No.5555142

>>5554990
Most people don't believe in leprechauns.

Like 90% of the planet believes in some flavor of god.

This is absolutely not a solid logical
argument for existence, but provides nonzero evidence.

>> No.5555143 [DELETED] 

>>5555135
>implying that I actually care the slightest about the threads and just don't shitpost profusely

>> No.5555146

>>5555143
>admitting to shitposting
>using a name

How new are you?

>> No.5555147

>>5555137
>I'm already aware of the existence of sand.

That's not relevant. The issue is whether the total number of grains of sand is odd or even.

You have said that it is not true to say of you that you believe the total number will be even at midnight tomorrow, your local time.

And yet I assume that it is ALSO not true to say of you that you believe it will be odd.

Now. The number will definitely be one or the other at midnight tomorrow your local time. It won't be both and it won't be neither - it can't be.

So we know that you don't believe it will be odd, you don't believe it will be even and you don't believe it will be both or neither.

I think this demonstrates very clearly that it is indeed possible to neither believe a proposition nor believe its negation. No?

>> No.5555150

>>5555143
>I was only pretending to be retarded!!!

>> No.5555151

>>5555096
Notice I said 'modern concept of religion,' the idea that there are mutually-exclusive systems of thought about a 'supernatural world' known as religions.

>> No.5555152

>>5555136
>Among which saying "Yes, I am an atheist" when asked does not number.

Says who? You? Are you the Grand Pooh-Bah of what is and isn't a "social organization"?

>completely skipping "religion", "ideology", "culture", and "information preference"
>not realizing that these are only examples and are not exclusive

>Mmm, yeah, change that subject. Good segue. Seamless. The perfect crime.

That was the original point; you moved the goalposts.

Seems like we're done here, unless you had more backtracking to add.

>> No.5555153 [DELETED] 

>>5555146
>implying

I run this board, faggot

>> No.5555155

>>5555142
>Most people don't believe in leprechauns.
>Like 90% of the planet believes in some flavor of god.

And?

>> No.5555158

>>5555151

I'm not sure I know what you mean, because schisms etc (including the execution of 'heretics') well preclude Protestantism. So I must not be understanding you.

>> No.5555159 [DELETED] 

>>5555150
>implying
>posting in a thread about religion on an Indonesian cartoon image board
>thinks he's intelligent

What a faggot

>>5555151
>>5555151
>shit, mang
Dude, I really don't give a fuck
I just wanted to shitpost

Fite me

>> No.5555165

>>5555147
>That's not relevant.

Yes it is. It's extremely relevant.

>I think this demonstrates very clearly that it is indeed possible to neither believe a proposition nor believe its negation. No?

No, your argument is still childish and a terrible analogy. If we're taking mathematical axioms at face value, we know that the amount will either be even or odd, and we also know that sand exists in the first place.

This has no similarities whatsoever with the god argument because what is being debated about is the existence of god itself. You are starting with a construct that already exists and asking about a future state that we know is binary.

Try again.

>> No.5555166

>>5555152
>Says who? You?

Says everyone. Particularly those who paid attention to the part where "social organisations" was placed in the context of political argument.

>That was the original point; you moved the goalposts.

I didn't 'move the goalposts', I saw your post in a sea of posts and picked up on your Eliza-like knee-jerk "identity politics" output.

It seems you're immune to embarrassment and given the option would probably choose to castrate yourself with a rusty spoon rather than acknowledge your mistake, so yeah, we're done.

>> No.5555175

>>5555165
>This has no similarities whatsoever with the god argument

I think it does, insofar as we know that God either exists or does not exist - one or the other (odd or even). God can't both exist and not exist, nor can God *neither* exist nor not exist - that is the binary distinction the grains-of-sand example is analagous with.

>> No.5555209

>>5555175
No, because once again, you're comparing a situation where 1) a known construct exists and 2) the future state can either be even or odd.

You are comparing this with a situation where 1) an unfalsifiable object is the subject of discussion and 2) it either exists or it doesn't. You are giving undue credence to the deity in an attempt to elevate the question itself to the level of a situation dealing with an already-known object. This is disingenuous at best and obfuscates the discussion about what constitutes both "knowledge" and "belief".

This line of argumentation is commonly employed by creationists aka "intelligent design advocates".

>> No.5555214

>>5555159
>newfag

>> No.5555219

>>5555209
>You are giving undue credence to the deity in an attempt to elevate the question itself to the level of a situation dealing with an already-known object.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to explain to you that you're wrong to say it's impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve a proposition.

I'm not seeing a lot of substance to your response, if I'm honest.

>> No.5555240

>>5555219
>I'm not seeing a lot of substance to your response, if I'm honest.

I'm not seeing a lot of substance to your argument.

You are taking a proposition - a proposition that requires (and satisfies) the axioms that 1) sand already exists and 2) its future state is a binary one (odd or even in number), and comparing this to a proposition about whether or not an unfalsifiable object exists. It's an intellectually dishonest attempt at justifying your unwillingness to admit out loud that there is no rational reason to hold a belief in a deity, nothing more. It also obfuscates the meanings of "knowledge" and "belief".

>> No.5555255

>>5555158
Current usage of 'religion' is an Enlightenment concept, the word and its root (religio) were not used in the same sense in the medieval period or antiquity.

For the Romans it meant whatever rituals you were expected to perform as a citizen, for medieval Christians it was used exclusively to describe orthodox Christianity and anyone outside that community was either heretic or pagan.

>> No.5555313

>>5555240
>You are taking a proposition - a proposition that requires (and satisfies) the axioms that 1) sand already exists and 2) its future state is a binary one (odd or even in number), and comparing this to a proposition about whether or not an unfalsifiable object exists.

You keep saying this and it keeps not being relevant. Whether or not an object exists (even an 'unfalsifiable' one) is a binary proposition. That's all that matters. We aren't discussing anything even verging on arguments for or against the *actual* existence or not of a god, we're discussing the possible range of states of doxastic being. This discussion could have begun in literally any context: did Saddam have WMDs; is austerity working; will the next President be a Republican and so on.

You didn't say that it was impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve *in God*, you said that it was impossible to neither believe nor disbelieve in *anything*. And I am showing you that you are wrong to say that. The properties that "God" putatively possesses and/or the properties of the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" are completely irrelevant to the possible doxastic attitudes that can be held towards those propositions.

>It's an intellectually dishonest attempt at justifying your unwillingness to admit out loud that there is no rational reason to hold a belief in a deity, nothing more.

LOL. I'm an atheist, dude. Or an agnostic, whichever label you happen to prefer for my stance.

>> No.5555329

>>5555313
>I'm an atheist, dude. Or an agnostic

The two aren't mutually-exclusive. This has been gone-over.

>> No.5555339

>>5555329
>This has been gone-over.

Indeed it has.

>>5555018
>I actually prefer the definition you're going with, but there's no point butting heads with people over it. When Huxley coined the term, he meant it closer to how they use it than how you do, for example. That's obviously not definitive, but usage is, and IME most people use it the slightly silly way that you're attacking.

>> No.5555401

>>5554990
>comparing the basis for existence to green midgets.
The most reddit tier post I've seen in a while.

>> No.5555418

>>5555401
>thinking green midgets can't be the basis for existence
>calling things you don't like "reddit-tier"

The most pseudo-intellectual post I've seen in a while.