Religion poll

shintoism

>no mithra
>no commun
>no satan

...

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE INVENTED RELIGIOUS TRADITION =/= RELIGIOUS TRADITION

>hiding Islam
fail

but they're both polytheistic

>No Confucianism
>Can't check multiple boxes

maybe after this we can finally separate humanities from this board and actually have good discussion while catholics and protestants continue their retarded flame war in their own containment humanities board

>implying

This isn't a Veeky Forums thing, the majority of Veeky Forums is probably agnostic or atheist, it's just the cool contrarian thing to be a christfag now that the Internet is mostly nonbelievers.

Yes, user, all those fucking gaytheists taking over our holy board.

DIRTY KUFFARS

youtube.com/watch?v=SWP_95eSLBI

Only voted new age because there is no polytheist option.

> Post-modernism

>no agnostic option

Yeah you can

ill flow t b h

Atheism is the lack of the positive belief of a God or Gods, and Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge of Gods existence.
You can be both at once (Agnostic Atheist) neither (Gnostic Theist) Theists can even be Agnostic, you described a Gnostic Atheist.
ps I don't care if you were baiting, this needed to be said.

Yeah it's kinda well done for jihadist rap.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

WEAK

>20 zoraostrians

Glad, i'm not alone

>20 LARPers*

>freddy mercury was a LARPer

yeah, no. Taoism makes no sense if you're not Chinese. Why don't you go back worshipping your desert wizard instead.

t. actual chink

>Implying zoroastrianism is neopaganism

Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds are the only commandements we don't need costumes and rituals.

Thank you, sir

This is an autist's definition, like correcting people for calling a trilby a fedora. Atheists know there's no god. Agnostics either don't know, or believe we can't know.

I'm more of a perennial New Mysterianism in that I think all sincere religious practitioners who experience gnosis are only "experiencing a fragment of the greater mystery (that involves our mind's relation to the material world) beyond certainty (note, not words -- I'm not an anti-rationalist)". This is not a New Age view, and it's not pure perennialism either. It's also not justification of Zen doublespeak, which I dislike.

The reason I am not New Age is because I think the "mind's relation the material world" will always have some mystery and we cannot have established certainty regarding it. I actually think the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" could be more of a "Hard Problem of Explicit Memory", like Henri Bergson, or any number of things relating to mind.

I think the greater pain in life comes from the lack of certainty in an apparently indifferent, cruel universe, but if we were shown that some aspects of the mind after death have an effect, somehow, on the material world -- then death would be more consoling. I think religious experiences of gnosis hint at it, but they are all unfalsifiable -- much like how even materialism is unfalsifiable. I'm not agnostic, however, because I do believe in a strong possibility of some greater mystery that gives life purpose.

Metaphysics is a waste of time. We will never have certainty regarding the deeper questions of life though. Speculating on this stuff is only good if you want to make money (i.e., amass an audience and spoon feed them your answer to the mystery for big bucks).

Why would anyone be an agostic?

I'm pretty sure agnostics are just people who fail to understand the scientific and metaphysical issues that make up the question.

>Atheists know there's no god
Saying that you KNOW there's no god is as absurd as saying that you know there's one.
If you think someone can possibly KNOW these kind of things, you're either insane or didn't spend any time at all thinking about it.

But actual Zoroastrianism has plenty of costumes and rituals.

Stop LARPing.

Why not? Is scientific and philosophical knowledge not possible?

>have plenty of costumes and rituals
>implying every other religion doesn't have those things
>hurr stop worshipping anything that isn't christian if you're white you fucking LARPers

>Sunni Islam 48%

You misread. 48 people voted for Sunni Islam, but that is only 5%.

>48%
48*

What if I'm a agnostic with theistic tendencies

t. New Age nu-male

New Age

New Age.

I am not New Age. Also, if you're a New Atheist, then you're just a logical positivist who believes in retarded crap like ethical naturalism.

My view is definitely not New Age. New Mysterianism =/= New Age

t. New Age nu-male in denial

Nigga how

>I don't believe in God but I'm very spiritual!

Stupid faggot. I am challenging you to a debate. I was a Zen Buddhist for 5 years, and I was also a scientist who was a hardcore materialist for 3 years. I was also close to becoming a Christian once.

Now my views are based off a balanced interpretation of my life experiences AND analytic philosophy with a tinge of continental crap.

I'm not spiritual. I just feel there could be a deity but I don't have any thing to verify it's existance

Suppose you got to "know" that some god exists because some revelation or whatever, how can you objectively discern your experience from pure hallucination? Aren't you making the assumption that your mental faculties actually work properly in the first place? Is it possible to know something and yet not be able to prove it?

Can a being such as god be proven to not exist by science? How can science approach something "immaterial" and supernatural? Does lack of evidence of existence prove nonexistence?

>4 JWs

are they even allowed to use computers?

New age

I recommend reading criticisms of logical positivism (i.e., attempt to eliminate metaphysics by reducing all meaningful sentences to either logical/mathematical truths or observation statements).

W.V. Quine did a good job showing why Logical Positivism is ridiculous in his paper (ditext.com/quine/quine.html).

The problem that this classic paper lays out is that logical positivism assumes that there exists a distinction between theoretical and observational sentences, such that for any theoretical sentence, it is possible to enumerate the observational sentences that would verify it.

However, Quine attacks all of that position. According to him, it's not possible to distinguish between theoretical and observational statements, and it's not possible to state a set of sentences whose truth would verify or falsify any given sentence.

>I was a Zen Buddhist for 5 years
pic related

New Age confirmed.

I am not New Age, you stupid faggot. New Age people think they have the mystery figured out -- I don't.

You could say I am crypto-adherent of the Traditionalist School though, in the vein of proponents like Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon. I do not consider myself as such though.

I went to a Soto Zen monastery and almost accept precepts. I am not a New Age.

>accept
accepted*

The fact I went to a Soto Zen monastery and practiced sincerely and almost became ordained means I am not New Age: I respect religious traditions and rituals, faggot. I don't just adopt what suits my biases.

New age

The fact I went to a Soto Zen monastery and practiced sincerely and almost became ordained means I am not New Age: I respect religious traditions and rituals, faggot. I don't just adopt what suits my biases.

I AM NOT NEW AGEY.

New age

>how can you objectively discern your experience from pure hallucination?

You could make the same objection to all evidential knowledge.

>Aren't you making the assumption that your mental faculties actually work properly in the first place?

What's the problem with that assumption?

If you actually take your own views to its logical conclusion, they would entail that knowledge is impossible, a self-defeating view.

New Atheists are just as bad as New Age faggots. They're both anti-intellectual imbeciles, much like you.

New age

>I am not New Age
>I am not New Age
>Stupid faggot
>I am not New Age, you stupid faggot
>I am not a New Age
>I am not New Age
>faggot
>I AM NOT NEW AGEY
Go play with tarot cards or something.

>new mysterianism
new age.
>spirit science
new age
>agnosticism
new age.
>paganism
new age.
>scientology
new age.
>satanism
new age.
>rastafari
new age.
>zen buddhist
new age.
>goddess movement
new age
>zoroastrian
new age.
>mormonism
new age.

>Go play with tarot cards or something.
I think I'm more of a pragmatist in the Richard Rorty sense, faggot.

Stop arguing against a strawman, you imbecile.

Quine was a cool guy.

Look at the list of contemporary New Mysterians:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism#Adherents

Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Roger Penrose, and even Sam Harris (for some time -- he is an inconsistent thinker) are/were New Mysterians.

It's a philosophical position in Analytic Philosophy; it does not relate to religion directly, faggot.

At what point does a religion stop being new age?

You're like a godless confused agnostic claiming he's not atheos. Just tick the New Age box and submit your choice bro.

Around the same time when people start claiming all the ridiculous bullshit in its holy book are just metaphors.

So, like a few centuries.

When it has a developed theology and isn't just LARPing.

Why does agnosticism trigger you guys?

when it reaches old age

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

Nope, I'm not New Agey. I am an Ironist and New Mysterian, that's it.

New Agers literally create half-assed eclectic metaphysical/religious belief systems that suit their biases. They pick and choose whatever justifies their chosen lifestyle.

because its new age

Well, yes. That's the whole point, the fact that you have to start things from an assumption already tells you that absolute knowledge is at least not probable.

>New Agers literally create half-assed eclectic metaphysical/religious belief systems that suit their biases. They pick and choose whatever justifies their chosen lifestyle.
Sounds just like you pal.

>absolute knowledge

How is this relevant to the discussion? """Absolute""" knowledge (whatever the fuck that means) may as well not exist, does this means it's reasonable to be agnostic about 2 + 2 = 4, or that the earth orbits the sun?

If knowledge is impossible, then how can you be in a position to claim anything about anything?

Pyrrho, Protogoras, the creation hymn in the Rig Veda, even Kant and Kierkegaard displayed and wrote about beliefs and veiws that seem agnostic .

>Sounds just like you pal.
Not really. I haven't really created a religious system or anything. I'm not an atheist because I think there is a greater mystery in life, but I don't know what it is or if anything can be said certainly about it. I think I'm more of a Christian atheist or kind of Kierkegaard in mentality: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

>Christian atheist
Literally New Age.

It seems we have different definitions of what constitutes New Age.

>Christian atheism

Watch Au Hasard Balthazar or something.

I'm done debating with you, subhuman pleb. You must be mixed with some Jew.

>Watch Au Hasard Balthazar or something.
I already have. I love Bresson. You're still New Age though. You've literally described yourself here

If a child was raised in a non religious environment what would it be?

Non religious

>I love Bresson.
Bresson is a Christian Atheist, faggot. Is he New Age?

new age.

>is
was*