[ 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: 92 KB, 600x254, Writing[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5656502 No.5656502[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Let's have a religion poll ITT. How many of you are Agnostics? If not, what are you?

>> No.5656512

I'm an agnostic, I enjoy Christian traditional values though.

>> No.5656515

>>5656512
so you're literally a nihilist?

>> No.5656521

I reject the entire theological discussion as linguistically incoherent.

>> No.5656524

>>5656521
How? That sounded pretentious as fuck.

>> No.5656534

I'm a deist, because of Spinoza and Hume. It's their fault. The problem of the necessary connection between our perceptions can only be solved by the presence of an altogether present and all powerful God. As Hume can't find the principle of this connexion in our reason, and Spinoza finds it in God, the reason becomes our tool to discover God.

>> No.5656546
File: 25 KB, 712x956, agnostics.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5656546

>>5656502
>agnostic
Pic related, you're all indecisive faggots who are confused about what differentiates atheism and theism (hint: it's the amount of proof one requires to believe in something).

>> No.5656551

>>5656534
>The problem of the necessary connection between our perceptions can only be solved by the presence of an altogether present and all powerful God
But that's false, your brain makes the necessary connections for you to have sensations stemming from perception.
>As Hume can't find the principle of this connexion in our reason, and Spinoza finds it in God, the reason becomes our tool to discover God.
>"one guy didn't find an answer and the other one said he did in God, so the other guy must be right"
Idiot.

>> No.5656552

"I'm entirely sure I have no idea what is going on."

>> No.5656556

An agnostic is fundamentally an atheist, who can't say why.

>> No.5656558

>>5656546
>tfw the agnostic is the only one with a consistent belief system

>the amount of proof required
No, it's the amount of circumstantial evidence required before you make a baseless assumption about the nature of reality. The Theist requires very little, the Atheist requires slightly more, the Agnostic requires actual proof, of which there is none.

>> No.5656569

>>5656558
>No, it's the amount of circumstantial evidence required before you make a baseless assumption about the nature of reality.
>baseless assumption
>evidence
You just contradicted yourself you idiot. Oh, and it's all about plausibility, and so far there is no plausible reason to believe in a god, so the default stance becomes atheism, not your infantile greek era scepticism.

>The Theist requires very little, the Atheist requires slightly more, the Agnostic requires actual proof, of which there is none.
You will never get "actual proof" of anything, do you even basic philosophy of knowledge?

I'm guessing you say "you can't know if santa is real or not" too then, and if so, you are a retard. See my earlier pic, it sums up you and your kind (closeted atheists scared of their religious neighbor) perfectly.

>> No.5656570

>>5656524
>How?
Because the concept, or every conceivable concept, of a God is logically falsifiable within the semantic system it was created in. External to that is the Kantian void, and any attempt to discuss the external things outside of our knowledge just creates semantic concepts and drags us back into hermeneutics. Both the phenomenal and speculations on the noumenal realm are abstractions within our frameworks, and must be fundamentally rejected as representations and not the thing being described.

Theists: I believe in chair-ness
Atheists: I don't believe in chair-ness
Agnostics: I don't know for certain
General semanticists: "Chair-ness" will always be a linguistic construct *within* a descriptive framework.

>pretentious
Anon, pls.

>> No.5656572

>tfw I'm Zoroastrian

>> No.5656578

>>5656569
No, I was just using "evidence" and "proof" to mean different things. I guess you're too dumb to have inferred that.
>You will never get "actual proof" of anything, do you even basic philosophy of knowledge?
Yes, that's the point.
Ignorance is bliss, eh? Have fun!

>> No.5656579

>>5656570
>Because the concept, or every conceivable concept, of a God is logically falsifiable within the semantic system it was created in.
Not true, a bible thumper can easily just say "god works in mysterious ways" and then make it impossible for you to prove that God would be a paradoxical and impossible being.

>> No.5656580

>>5656570
>>5656569
Nerd

>> No.5656586

>>5656578
>No, I was just using "evidence" and "proof" to mean different things. I guess you're too dumb to have inferred that.
You're still the dumb one if you seriously adhere to agnosticism.

>Yes, that's the point.
Just because we can't prove or disprove things for certain, it does not follow that your "god" is plausible at all and thus not worth a second though.

>> No.5656590

>>5656546
Are you 12? Saying you KNOW a god doesn't exist or that you KNOW a god doesn't exist is ridiculous. There's no observable evidence for either. We're saying that since there is no observable evidence, we simply do not know.

>> No.5656592

>>5656586
How is a deity not plausible? They're not some giant human suspended in the clouds, they may well be beyond our conception.

>> No.5656596

>>5656586
>You're still the dumb one if you seriously adhere to agnosticism.
No u. Great comeback bro.

What does plausible have to do with anything? Used to be implausible that the Earth went around the Sun, so the fuck what?
>muh system of beliefs is sacred!
Just listen to yourself.

>> No.5656597

>>5656590
>There's no observable evidence for either.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the burden of proof is not with the atheist and thus your shitty little argument falls apart.

>We're saying that since there is no observable evidence, we simply do not know.
Why don't you apply that to your everyday life too, tell your teacher you can't know the answer to your math test questions "for sure" and see if he/she cares.

>> No.5656599

>>5656570
Well now that you explain yourself, and I can see you have knowledge, you're not that pretentious to me anymore.


>inb4 implying I cared

>> No.5656600

>>tfw I'm a Jainist

>> No.5656602

>>5656597
>the burden of proof is not with the atheist
It is if the atheist is saying there is no god. You seem to be confused.

>> No.5656606

>>5656592
>How is a deity not plausible?
Because there is no evidence for it (burden of proof), and there is no need for a deity, it's only a bronze-age way of explaining that which is yet unknown to us.


>>5656596
>What does plausible have to do with anything?
It has everything to do with everything. We always operate on what's most likely statistically, not what is actually "true" (since there is no such thing). If you deny that plausibility should come into play when discussing different subjects, you could believe in any lunacy.
> Used to be implausible that the Earth went around the Sun, so the fuck what?
That was never implausible, argumentum ad populum does not make something plausible or implausible. Shitty argument.

>> No.5656612

>>5656602
>It is if the atheist is saying there is no god
The theist is the one who is making a positive claim, saying there is a god. The atheist simply ignores that which has no evidence, so he doesn't have the burden of proof.
>You seem to be confused.
You seem to be even more confused, given that you are debating on the level of a toddler.

>> No.5656614

>>5656590
>since there is no observable evidence, we simply do not know

>positivism
o nice 1 m8

>> No.5656616

I'm a Catholic, I'm also reading through Portrait of the Artist as a young man and I'm at the part where dedalus has just gone to confession and is head over heels for religion, I wonder when he changes his mind

>> No.5656619

>>5656612
But the Atheist is stating that there is no God, Atheism isn't a reactionary viewpoint it's a defined postion in itself therefore it has it's own burden of proof

>> No.5656621

>>5656597
So basically what you're saying is faith is required for anything that is extraterrestrial? You are correct, meaning anything could be correct. Meaning agnostics would rather use their knowledge elsewhere, than trying to prove something that is ultimately not able to be proved.

>> No.5656622

>>5656606
>We always operate on what's most likely statistically, not what is actually "true" (since there is no such thing). If you deny that plausibility should come into play when discussing different subjects, you could believe in any lunacy.
"What's most likely statistically" is still a baseless assumption. As you agree, there's no actual proof. What we operate upon has nothing to do with what's actually the case. Nation states and money both being imaginary things we operate on, for example. When you play Minesweeper, you choose which boxes to click based on what you think is most likely, yet still you don't always win.

>> No.5656630

>>5656612
The atheist is also making a positive claim, that there is no god. Or are you one of these new-wave atheists who's trying to reframe the debate to say that atheists don't claim that?

>> No.5656645
File: 11 KB, 239x340, ori__2040305664_1073149_Veracruz_Terracotta_Incencario_Depicting_the_Fire_God_Huehueteotl_-_PF.4205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5656645

>>5656619
>But the Atheist is stating that there is no God, Atheism isn't a reactionary viewpoint it's a defined postion in itself therefore it has it's own burden of proof

Okay, Christfag. Do you believe in Huehueteotl the fertility God? No? burden of proof on you to prove he doesn't exist. Do you believe in Huitzilopotchli the Aztec bird Goddess? No? Do you believe in ten thousand other God concepts? No? Just your own magical one. Burden of proof is on you to refute all ten thousand first, then I'll address your one.

>> No.5656661

Muslim

>> No.5656668

>>5656645
People who believe in those gods are also theists you retard.

>> No.5656676

>>5656668
"Theist" doesn't cover the entire spectrum of possible Gods, retard. If you don't believe in Huehueteotl, the one true God, you are an atheist with regard to that particular God. Same as a Huehueteotlist is an atheist with regard to your personal idea of the Christian God.

>> No.5656678
File: 5 KB, 251x201, nottheperryone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5656678

>>5656645

I have here a recorded witness testimony, where God is reported to have said, "I am the only God". Does Huehueteotl have similar accounts? No? Checkmate atheists!

>> No.5656680

Taoist

>> No.5656681

>>5656645
My point is both theists and atheists are making positive claims which both require burdens of proof, neither side can offer one.

>> No.5656687

>>5656676
Apart from
>"Theist" doesn't cover the entire spectrum of possible Gods
You're correct. If someone believes in a god- any god, they are a theist. They are also an atheist - in regard to any gods they don't believe in. But this is irrelevant. We're talking about atheists as in those who believe there are no gods of any sort. And agnostics as in those who don't believe one way or the other, as there is no proof of any of them, particularly since as you've already agreed, there can be no proof of anything. Your assumption that the anon you were addressing is a christfag just marks you out as a ridiculous neckbeard.

>> No.5656688

>>5656676
No, an atheist says there is no God whatsoever. You cannot be an atheist to one religion's God and a theist to another. You would just be an unbeliever to that particular religion

>> No.5656690

>>5656645
have you ever heard of agnostic atheism

>> No.5656713

>i'm agnostic

Epithome of pretentiousness
There are really few people who aren't agnostic. If you believe or not, that's the hot shit and the real deal

t. former self-described "agnostic"

>> No.5656736

>>5656687
>And agnostics as in those who don't believe one way or the other, as there is no proof of any of them

Oh, God, people still parrot this shit that Agnosticism is a middle-man/mutually-exclusive. It's just contemporary posturing by intellectual-cowards whom are afraid to own their Atheism because of the baggage it entails.

>I know! I'll take a fence-sitting position rather than be called nasty things if I proclaim myself an Atheist! Even though I'm most-likely an Agnostic Atheist -- but, Atheism is such a bad word; I don't want my feelings hurt.

>>5656688
>an atheist says there is no God whatsoever

Just as stupid a remark as thinking Agnosticism is a middle-man.

Why this stupidity persists is beyond me.

>> No.5656739

>>5656713
>There are really few people who aren't agnostic. If you believe or not, that's the hot shit and the real deal.
>t. former self-described "agnostic"

This is probably the most pretentious way to say you're agnostic.

>> No.5656743

>>5656736
What? Either you believe there is a God (theism) You believe there is not a God (atheism) or you don't know (agnosticism) what else is there?