Is anyone here unironically non-Atheist?

Define existence. Existence always 'exists' it just shifts, it's not a static plain (right word?) like we think.

that only justifies agnostic atheism though. do you have absolute proof that God is not real?

>implying I would respond carefully and properly to a LARPING tripfag
(you)

fuck off retard

I meant if anyone here is actually religious not some meme tier made up beliefs which are basically atheism

Jeez, calm down. This is a safe space, no bullying allowed. It's okay if you can't grasp the ideas.

agnostic/gnostic is just your degree of certainty. you're just attacking a strawman of atheism which most don't adhere to

Me. If you think about it, athiesm doesn't inherently offer anything better/more meaningful than religion in general.

Also nuAtheism is basically a religion in of itself anyway. The only draw is maxxed out self-assurance, which is pretty Bible Belt-tasic.

> Define existence.
State of limited possibility.

>Is anyone here unironically non-Atheist?

I don't know if I would call LARPers "ironic," per se. Irony implies a certain level of self-awareness.

I don't care about your meme tier belief. It's basically atheism, you live like there is no God, that's all I care about faggot.

Did you think I made this thread to get 99999x responses from special snowflake fedoras who say they are gnostic agnostic homosexual pantheistic etc?

I was curious if there is a single unironical believer on Veeky Forums now I know it's just 100% special snowflake fedoras like you faggot.

So pretty much "everything"? What makes you think this universe is all that there is and will ever be? If the universe "came from nothing" then evidently our idea of nothing is wrong and doesn't actually exist.

What you are saying means literally nothing and can go on all day because it's just these vague ideas, no objective ones. Existence is such an objective term, but then you used terms such as "limited possibility" to define it, we do not even have every possibility out there, so how can you define what is limited?

Define Limitied
Define Possibilities
Define the context of "limited possibility"

> absolute proof that God is not real
God transcends reality. Don't you know?

Jeez, you mad bruh. Just take a second, collect your thoughts. Maybe you should define your question. Instead of "non-atheist".

xD.

>now I know it's just 100% special snowflake fedoras like you faggot.
Veeky Forums users are actually quite logical, outside of Veeky Forums.

>athiesm doesn't inherently offer anything better/more meaningful than religion in general.
why does it need to be more "meaningful"? agnostic atheism is just simply the more logical position. if it matters more to you to feel good then to be right than go ahead and keep on believing

MAYBE EVERYONE NO SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE FEDORA DESPERATELY TRYING TO PROVE HIS """INTELLIGENCE"""" WOULD KNOW WHAT I MEAN RIGHT

WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT SOME "GNOSTICS" OR "AGNOSTICS"

Perhaps pantheism isn't tge right term. To be truthful I wouldn't know how to categorize my beliefs. But I was raised to worship some 'gods' in my family. I see them as personifications of aspects of nature, or the world or reality in general. I see them all composed of and part of the same 'stuff' as me and the world around me. I respect their power for what they represent, but I do not see them as hierarchically higher than me. We all exist on the same plane you can say. I see things as a state of constant change and always transforming. Sorry if this doesn't make sense it's hard to convey this in English.

that just sounds like atheism. if I went through the act of communion and acknowledged the symbolism involved it wouldn't make me a christian

I worship the one true goddess

Kek, holy shit man. You should probably not make threads. But yeah, no jews, christians or muslims on Veeky Forums, cause you mad.

>WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT SOME "GNOSTICS" OR "AGNOSTICS"
I don't, it just pisses me off when proclaimed "agnostics" feel like they are superior to atheists when they are really the same fucking thing

I don't reject other 'gods' existing. Jesus is one of the several figures I pray to for example.

I cannot conceive of a reality which wasn't created by god so I believe in god.
Perhaps it's just a god of the gaps fallacy but I'm not a smart guy so I don't care if it is.

>assuming being right has any meaning

> So pretty much "everything"?
Existence is pretty much "everything" even from a common point of view.
> What makes you think this universe is all that there is and will ever be?
Nothing. I never said, that only our universe exist. Just that God didn't.
> If the universe "came from nothing"
You can't came from nothing. This is meaningless term to use as there is nothing to came from.
> Define Limited
Anything with defined contradiction is limited.
> Define Possibilities
Any recognizably different state of existence.
> Define the context of "limited possibility"
Definition of existence is the context.
> you used terms such as "limited possibility"
Limited possibilities are objective. For example, you can't ignore gravity. Your possibilities of movement are limited. Just jump out of the window, no matter how you will juggle your words, you will fall. Do gravity exist and what is even is it? It is more speculative matter than limitation of your possibilities.
> we do not even have every possibility out there
One counter example is enough for limitations of possibilities being real.

But you said that you only acknowledge the power of the things that the gods' symbolize. do you actually think that Jesus rose from the dead or do you think it's a good story that has some good symbolic meaning?

I consider myself a humanist. I believe that sapience has intrinsic value, and therefore humanity should do everything possible to preserve itself (ideally spreading itself throughout the universe). "Religious" experiences are creations of the human mind. Every human has the potential to add greatness to the world.

Agnostic here

you might as well say language has no meaning then

>agnostic atheist

Just say atheist, those are two different things.

If you know what you're talking about by "God", then the answer to the statement "God exists" can be either "yes", "no", or "I don't know." An atheist would answer "no", whereas an agnostic would answer "I don't know".

T E N G R I
E
N
G
R
I

Actually this. If universe is just random, there is nothing after death, nothing lasts forever etc why would I care about being right? I would just want to feel good while I'm not dead forever yet.

That's a pretty poor comparison.

>humanist
ah humanism, the religion of the atheist

Agnostic on principle but effectively athiest.

I regarded it as a stupid useless question (How can you sort through a set that contains deities who possess an infinite range of psychologies, motivations, urges, etc and be sure that "Gods" are actually benevolent gods or instead a god with a "negative" motivation/psychology/actions,etc)

And then I realized how black box everything and realized I couldn't really be athiest.

Knowledge is fucking hard, especially when dealing with an unbounded set of possible outcomes of a test.
"Wow this test proved...fucking nothing"
"Okay this test...no statistical signifigance"

Your gold could be a lifetime of jack shit and then a moment of glory. And then you see people, merely lucky, being raised on high. But anyways I realized how reality could resemble the Maya of Buddhism as opposed to the celestial spheres of western andtradition.

You could think you have knowledge and then lose it all as Maya spits on your face for your arrogance. And there's a certain arrogance in the religious which is often offset by the spirit of charity, community, and hospitality. That arrogance is trying to make reality a fixed picture while Maya continually rips chunks of the Ship of Thesus in the background.

Why not? I've seen and heard some strange things in my life. And heard of tales of people bringing others from the dead.

i said unironically fucking memester

Who else hates Christianity but feels that it has to be true?
Honestly the idea of innocent, by human standards, souls like children burning in hell for an eternity or sitting around praising God in the heaven for ever and ever, or that God would abandon his previous covenants in favour of a sick and sadistic one is fucked. Maybe I just don't love the sick fuck Christ and that'll all go away when I'm able to indoctrinate myself into loving him.

I'm a Christian. I used to be an atheist until I was 19. Atheism is nothing but garbage to me now.

> I cannot conceive of a reality which wasn't created by god
But you can conceive how god created the reality? If anything, it is more simple for imagination just to believe that reality was always like that. Existed in state or existence. Nobody can imagine creation... Not atheists, not theists.

agnostic atheist is just as valid as a term as atheist and agnostic separate. I prefer it because most atheists don't take the position that they know for certain there is no god, just that they don't believe in god

Not all sects believe in a literal hell. That came in with Catholicism and kind of hung around with the majority of denominations ever since.

>but feels that it has to be true?
it's because you were raised Christian
>souls like children burning in hell for an eternity
children don't burn in any hell according to Catholicism, they are basically sinless(no proper conscience yet) I don't know about special snowflake American religions though

More like agnosticism, but with a good deal more drugs thrown in.

I don't deny the existence of a god(s). But if one exists I think it is irrelevant to human affairs.
For example, I don't concern myself much with the creation of the universe. There are some convincing scientific theories, but it could have been God. In either case, we should focus on improving humanity.

It isn't, actual academics don't use that shit. Terms like "agnostics atheism" or "gnostic theism" are only used by internet apologists (and it's a misuse of the word "gnostic"). Knowledge is not the same thing as absolute certainty; you know lots of things without being absolutely certain of them.

Agnostic atheist is a contradictio in adiecto, at the very moment you are an atheist, your religious believe is the non excistence of god, which means you can't claim to have no believe system.

I'm more inclined to believe that sola scriptura is the only valid way to be a Christian. I know that you have mormons, JW, unitarians, etc who don't believe in a painful afterlife for non believers but then they aren't following what scripture has to say and thus you'd be better of just not paying any attention to them.
>it's because you were raised Christian
My mothers family were all traditional chinese folk religion adhreants and my father was an atheist all of his life.
>children don't burn in any hell according to Catholicism
Is there any basis in scripture for this? If not it's no better than teaching universal reconciliation or a sort of painful purgatory for all non believers which I'm desperate to believe in but have no evidence of the validity of either.

And that sounds really dumb. If you don't know for certain whether there is a god, that is the definition of agnosticism.
If you "don't believe in god" then you believe he doesn't exist, so you are an atheist.

I feel like there are just so many stigmas around both words that people decide to just combine them and pretend it's something different. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

There is no point to assume agnosticism, because if you standard of evidence is fucking absolute one there is nothing you can be sure about, not even in agnosticism itself. It is better, to just claim gnostic atheism, while denying existence of objective truth as meaningful category.

I once tried to figure out which Christian denomination I would belong to if I were religious. I narrowed it down to Methodism and Presbyterianism; the difference therein being in the belief of predestination. I figured if God is almighty then Free Will makes no sense. But if you do believe in predestination you must be conceding on some level that the religion is pointless to begin with (if God already has his plan for the universe worked out).

> If you don't know for certain whether there is a god, that is the definition of agnosticism.
Wrong. Agnosticism is position where you claim that we can't know, not that you don't know.

I'll be honest I'm not really knowledgeable on Christian scriptures, that's what we are told by Catholic priests on religious education here though.

Kids are basically sinless and non believers still have chance to enter heaven (and to some point they are judged by their own conscience) it's just Catholic Christians are thought to have the "most accurate guidance".

Modern day Roman Catholicism is mostly really tolerant and understanding.

>My mothers family were all traditional chinese folk religion adhreants and my father was an atheist all of his life.
So I really wonder where this idea about Christianity being necessarily "true" came from.

I have the same feeling actually, I'm an atheist, still I "feel" there must be God and Christianity is more or less right but I was raised in traditional Roman Catholic family.

> If God is almighty then Free Will makes no sense
There could be some roundabout way, like he creates reality with every possible choice and you just freely experience what you choose to. The best argument here is that God himself should have a Free Will by being almighty being.

>sola scriptura
Funny thing. If you actually look at said scriptures, their support for a literal, eternally burning hell (for humans) is very shaky. Most of it is built on ignorance of context (i.e. Jesus' parable of the rich man and the beggar is mostly symbolic and shouldn't be taken as support for the whole "die and go to hell forever" idea) or ignorance of actual warning. There's a lake of fire at the end of the world, yeah, but the only ones said to burn in it forever are the devil and his angels. For everyone else, it's just called the second death.

I didn't realize that you needed an academic to dictate how you use language to differentiate ideas. Why exactly is atheism unjustifiable if you aren't holding it to the standard of needing absolute certainty to "know"? A basic overview of world history will show you how religions evolve without appearing to have divine revelation. "Proofs" of God either rely on axioms that not everyone will agree to and/or reduce "God" to a vague, meaningless definition, making them also appear to simply be a desperate attempt to rationalize religious belief. This is my reason for not believing, but it certainly doesn't hold up to the level of absolute certainty.

What exactly is the difference between someone who is an a-unicornist vs. someone who is agnostic about unicorns? To me they appear to be the same position, where agnostic is used as a false middle ground to seem superior.

Who is Ego-Theist here? God exist, he is me.

It's pointless to try and figure out God, how he can be one thing and do another, etc.. As soon as we start talking about infinities, human logic starts to break down (outside of perhaps mathematics).

I'm sure you can defend agnosticism against every attack other, than the ones which make the case for the need in society to have norms and Myth to justify them. Most Atheist have little knowledge how many pramises you have to make to come to atheism. Objective truth is the nearly the same problem like the question is there a god, how could a proof for something like this look like?

By standards of absolute certainty, there are zero theists. The only certain way to know that there is God is to be God. Even if Christianity is true, only real theist would be Jesus himself. All other ways to know things aren't that strong as knowledge of God himself, therefore they couldn't be absolute.

I knew a guy like this once. He once, without irony, declared himself to be one of the most intellectually mature people on the planet.

If you've talked to many fundamentalists, they think that they have absolute proof of God's existence through the holy spirit. It doesn't matter whether it's justifiable, just whether it's the position that the individual takes

Or the atheist, can't proof there to be no unicorns. i would say commen sense and pleb thinking is enough, if daily live is concerened, but it is below the standards honest philosophy needs to implement to be taken serious.

Hi.

> you can defend agnosticism against every attack
Agnosticism itself is never based on evidence, that is strong enough for it to be considered certain. So it just refute itself as coherent logical position. You can defend that you personally doesn't really know if God exist or not, but it isn't really agnosticism. It should be called "weak" atheism or something like this. Nature of claim is still the same: God doesn't exist. Evidence is lacking, but it doesn't change in a sense what exactly you are claiming.

>Is anyone here unironically non-Atheist?
Yes, I live as if the great mother is present. There are scant temples to her name, but I heard her voice and fashioned myself after the galli. I share the journey of Attis with transgender women, in the hopes to give them a mythological foundation for their self-concept. The individualist bent of our society can be very alienating, as I'm sure you know. Why would I subscribe to the idea that every variance in human experience must be pathologized. Then there's outreach. I consider it a religious prescription to comfort men. Their emotional support is lacking, and their work is thankless. She wears a mural crown -- the city walls. Who builds the walls, and who protects them? There are rites, but I won't bore you with the details. The Romans kept fairly good records. Julian gives a passioned justification for the worship of the mother of the gods, and her consort. Like any religion, there are those things sacred and profane; purification through pain; the occasional piercing of the veil. Yadda, yadda.

what exactly is your standard for "honest philosophy"? it certainty can't be absolute proof, since all philosophy relies on unprovable axioms. Though less so than unicorns, there is a good case for gods being nothing more than an invention of humans

Wrong the opponent would have to proof the possiblity of a proof for or against god since he claims there to be one.

> through the holy spirit
Well, you can of course cash on here on basis of being prophet, but you need to be pretty good, as all your memories aren't that reliable and the only way to be sure is to be holy spirited every second of your life. If even that isn't enough... You always can rise standards of absolute evidences to literal omniscience.

> since he claims there to be one
I believe that everyone should just try to prove their statement instead of trying to shift the burden unto their opponent.

Honest phliosphy reflects about its theories their reach and its limits and communicates them to the common. A good chase is just what human standards define and the reach of human thought seems not to touch the rooms of possiblity in any meaningful way.

>be white american
>read about Buddhism
>actually agree with all the teachings
>go out of my way to distance myself from new age hippy "buddhists"
>everyone would still think I'm some spiritual hipster for being Buddhist anyway

Feels bad

So he still exists.

Good job, you found the proof of God that everybody ignores.
Logic is based in sentiment which is based in faith. The scientific method is the faith between perceptions (i.e., the rationalization of observation and the faith that effect proceeds cause).
Logic is a sentiment, you are a being driven by sentiment. Stop denying it.
You don't understand Christianity, thereby please do not speak on it. Your sentiments on a transcendental being are irrelevant.
Sectism is inherently anti-Christian.
>I figured if God is almighty then Free Will makes no sense
You figured wrong.

you seem to be operating with a strange definiens of agnosticism

There was a strawpoll a couple of months ago about Veeky Forums religions and deism was the most popular option.

Great standard for belief. Why not X? I've heard of some crazy shit. Might as well believe in anything people say.