I've been agnostic athiest for about 6 years, how can believe in God again?

retarted

sage

>Spinoza
>implying deism is theism

Catholic here, what are some good instructive books you would recommend on the art of Orthodox mysticism?

Whats the daily routine of a catholic (apart from going to church)? Do you pray after every meal? Do you do the rosary every night before bed?
I'm serious, I want to get into the head of a catholic, that way I can better understand them, start to think like them. Apart from calling myself a christian on certain taiwanese card-trading forums, I still think like an Atheist.

Veeky Forums - literature
fuck off to Veeky Forums with your teenage drama

not a single one of those books offers anything other than circular reasoning or wishful thinking

Any question you could ask will be answered in one of these books.

>God is portrayed as an old man with a long, white beard
bruh

The existence of God is a philosophical question

My first thought was that delusional hippies are worse than the normal brand of delusional Christians, but against my better edgement, could you give an example of such "immense insight"? Do you have any records showing people experiencing this "uncreated light" and any way to show this experience is an actual supernatural experience rather than clinical delusion?

Edward Feser has a new book that carefully explains and defends what I think are the best arguments for the existence of God. In doing this he demonstrates how misunderstood they are by the majority of philosophers.

gnosis

Holy shit, this is so crazy. Like, drugs-crazy "bruh" talk. That's the first thing that popped into my mind.
Sorry, user. I have nothing else to say in this thread, and please do ignore me.

point out at least one thing retarded about what he wrote

>wasting your time on religion

Stop. Your death is more than likely going to be horrific and uncomfortable, whether you are religious or not. Afterwards is irrelevant as afterwards is nothingness.

So if there is a God, and he is benevolent, you won't be punished for not wanting to be mired in a sea of shit and filth that is religious doctrine and philosophy. There are far more important things in life to be cultivating, that are more clearly grounded in the here and now.

>There are far more important things in life to be cultivating, that are more clearly grounded in the here and now.

What is more important and why is it? If everything after death is meaningless then every before death is meaningless too, so nothing could be more important than anything else.

>If everything after death is meaningless then every before death is meaningless too
This is your brain attempting logic on Christianity

Why is life meaningful to an atheist?

Not that guy, but for me, life is meaningless.
That means I can do whatever the fuck I want. And I want to create - I draw, I write and I program. Right now, I'm in the middle of writing two stories and making a game on agdg (on Veeky Forums). I want to feel the joys of love, companionship and friendship. I wanna read and be amazed by this world and its intricacies that is here just by chance, like myself.

Lack of meaning of life doesn't diminish this, it only enhances it. Whatever I do, whatever my failures will be, none of it will matter in the end. I just do whatever I want to do, trying to enjoy myself.

>le life is meaningless so le life is bad!

Meaning is created by you. That's why you have free will, so you can choose to create your own meaning and live your life by it.

Is this really hard to grasp? Is life too hard for you because it's not a linear computer program with a clearly defined purpose?

Well I'm glad you find joy in life but the reason I asked this is because he objected to my statement that if everything after death is meaningless, then so is everything before it. A meaningless life doesn't necessarily entail a joyless or unhappy one so you're not saying anything useful. The point I'm making is that if we accept that life is meaningless, then nothing we do can be better or more important than anything else we could do. Meaning there is nothing "far more important to be cultivating in life" than religious studies and philosophy.

>le life is meaningless so le life is bad!

Who is arguing this?

Many ways, but I was objecting to your poor logic primarily

>implying Nihilism isn't a conclusion reached by a frail, defeated mind

Where am I erring?

You're making a fair point and I agree with you. If that makes you happy, go ahead, there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

I'll move onto another topic here that has little to do with that previous topic but it does have something to do with belief.
Even if you call yourself a christian, I say that you do not actually believe in God, the authenticity of Bible being His word, Jesus and so on. If you did, you'd believe that following his teachings will grant you place by his side forever. Spending this mortal life by doing good by him would be your number one priority. You'd be leaving your possessions behind, giving them to the needy, and dedicating your life to Him and spreading His word. Saving other people from eternal damnation and ensuring their place in the heaven. I'm kind of pulling this out of my ass but consider this: even if it took you all of your life to sway one person from forever damnation to forever heavenly bliss, it'd still be a net positive in God's eyes, and should also be in yours. If you really, and I mean REALLY believed, that is what you would be doing. Well, at least a real christian would think like that.
But you live a life like everyone else here, pretending that a supremely watered down doctrine is somehow enough. It doesn't convince me that you actually believe, it just convinces me that you say you do.
I'm just curious if there'll be any response to this, because we're basically in a christian thread. I want to know what christians, who are doing barely anything, but could be doing much more to honor His word, justify all this, if they really believe it all.

I agree with you that many Christians don't live like they should, but this is a problem with the individual, not the teaching or philosophy. You're looking at people who don't follow Christian teaching and assuming that this is how all Christians act. With that said I do object to this idea that in order to be a real Christian you have to sell all your possessions and be super extreme because this isn't exactly biblical. The passage you might be referencing where Jesus instructs his apostles to sell their possessions and follow him are instructions for his apostles, not laymen believers. Laymen fathers are instructed to provide for their families, but they can't do that if they give away all of their possessions so it's unreasonable to believe this is a command for everybody instead of the apostles who are indeed still following these teachings today. The priests and bishops of the Catholic Church dedicate their lives to Christ.

>agnostic athiest
Yeah, well, you know, maybe you should look up words before you try to use them, kiddo...

Read Kierkegaard, don't bother with trying to trick yourself into having faith with ontology or cosmological arguments they'll only lead you back to agnosticism.

>this is a problem with the individual, not the teaching or philosophy
Yes, you are completely right there. I guess my point is that I don't accept most Christians as real Christians. I respect those who really stand by their faith and try to help other people find His way as much as possible. Because that really shows that they believe. Absolutely not all, but perhaps a majority, and at least a significant portion of Christians do not follow Christian teaching in that way, in my eyes. If they did, the Christian world would be different. That is just my opinion, and I'm going to list some of my clarifications to this below.

You make a very good point about the providing for their families part and I'll definitely have to rethink that part. It shows that my knowledge of Christianity and the Bible is clearly lacking. Thank you for showing me where my conclusions are off.

Still, I'd argue that most Christians aren't doing what they could be, even if we factor in for the whole "supporting themselves and their dear ones" thing. Let's talk USA, for example. USA is overwhelmingly Christian - 75% of its populace is. You'd think that the people who follow His path would want the best for everyone, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It's the ever rising mentality of "fuck you, got mine" that's fundamentally incompatible with the essence of Christianity. Especially like things like healthcare, which are a big point of contention in the States. A startlingly large part of the populace doesn't want their money going to public healthcare of all things. Even (and, perhaps, especially) if they have enough to live comfortably themselves. Let's remember that 3 out of 4 people in USA are Christian and there is a growing divide between classes. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. Would it still be so if all Christians decided to help each other at large?

Priests and clergy are definitely a group of people who are very close to God and I will not disparage them. They are closer to God's teachings and will than most. You beautifully said that they dedicate their lives to Him. But it seems their teachings mostly fall on deaf ears, sadly.

The world would be a much more amazing and pleasant place to live in if everyone was a *real* Christian. Certainly much more pleasant than such an antheist world, and I'm myself an atheist. And that atheist world is very close to our own, in my opinion.

Listening to terrence mckenna then taking a large dose of a psychedelic might get you to the edge of accepting the possibility of "something beyond". How you go from there to Christianity I don't know. Maybe read more woo woo psychedelic inspired spiritual writings, contemplate the words "sublime", "numinous", and "transcendental", and look into Jewish mysticism and early christian shit.

There's nothing wrong with what he's said

Read Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz

What psychedelic would be good for this? Or for getting the "bigger picture"?

McKenna always recommends mushrooms and DMT.

You can still provide for your families with a far lower budget, and provide the bare essentials while donating the majority of your income to charity. And, laymen believers should aim to emulate the apostles anyway. Whichever way you cut it, christ's teachings are not truly followed by all, including you.

In your non sequitur, where you say no meaning after death means no meaning before death. Meaning after death doesn't even imply meaning before death, and meaning cam be had before death without meaning after death. You'll need to clarify with what you mean by meaning though

I'm focusing on things that we disagree with but don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you that the majority of Christians don't act like they should. I just think it's more interesting to talk about disagreements when they can be found.

I think it's a mistake to assume that public healthcare is the only option for a Christian society because this presupposes that it's most effective method for providing healthcare to everyone who needs it and it also conflates welfare with charity.

Jesus calls us to charity but charity by definition must be freely given. We can't force somebody to give charity, but that's essentially we're attempting to do by instituting government run healthcare. We're forcing people to give money or pay a tax in order to fund socialized medicine. There are arguments to be made that this "enforced charity" is acceptable and what we should do but you can't say that this is what we're commanded to do as Christians. I'm only arguing against the rhetoric commonly employed by Democrats that government run healthcare is what Jesus wanted.

The second aspect is the question of whether or not socialized medicine is the most efficient means for helping the most amount of people, and I'm not convinced that it is. Any time you make something "free" you increase the demand for it and create shortages, which increases the cost. Socialist governments fight this by instituting arbitrary price ceilings but the more important consequence of this is the increased wait time. One study found that in Canada 876,000 people were waiting for treatments on any given day. Canadian patients waited more than 8 weeks to see a specialist and then another nine and a half weeks before treatment, including surgery. On top of that colon cancer patients in Britain had to wait so long that 20 percent of cases were inoperable by the time they got their "treatment." The same is true of lung cancer patients; and 25% of British cardiac patients die waiting for treatment. It's not surprising to see that people from these country that afford it, seek treatment in other countries like the United States.

Because the goal is to help as many people as possible I think its best to consider other options.

I have read your post but I'm going to sleep right now, so I can't reply to everything.

You make very fair points about healthcare that are hard to disagree with, but you're incorrect about the cost of it. Residents of USA already do pay an exorbitant amount for their healthcare and for many, a single trip to the ER can bankrupt a person. It's the system's biggest weakness. In fact, americans pay the most in the world for questionable coverage (on the grand scale). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita
With that, I'd like to leave the healthcare topic.

I'll think about what you said in the earlier part of your post, about charity. I think contemplating it will prove very beneficial to me.

>wants to delude himself
Troll post, nobody is this stupid. Or maybe you just don't care about reality, that's possible too.

It's been fun talking to you. Maybe the thread will be up tomorrow and we can continue. With that said I agree that the costs of healthcare in the US is insane, but I do think some things be done to lower it and at the very least make healthcare more accessible. If it was up to me I would begin by doing away with some of the superfluous regulations that contribute to the cost of healthcare. I'm not in the business so I can't really say what specific regulations need to be done away with, and I'm certainly not interested in doing away with all regulations. I have seen doctors and nurses complain about the insane amount of paperwork that they have to fill out for even the most simple treatments, and that's the sort of thing that I have in mind to get rid of. Another option would be to allow more insurance companies to compete with each other. It's my understanding that only a certain amount of companies are allowed to operate or cover specific areas or states and I can't think of any good reason why this should be the case.

But other than those two things I'm not really sure what could be done to lower the cost of healthcare in the US while still providing the quality of care that they do.

10 years or so for me. In my experience, it just happened. Probably because I was in a really shitty situation. I guess you should just live your life and also try to find God.

Jesus's divine character does it for me.
Is not the righteous character he demonstrates divine in nature? Who else could ever match him perfectly.

then Veeky Forums is the right place
now fuck off

>Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
>Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exlusive positions. An agnostic thinks the existance of a deity can't be known - an atheist denies the existance of deities. Logically, it's like saying: "you can't know what 5 times 4 is, but it's 42".

The way agnosticism modifies atheism is that you go from believing in the non-existence of deities (gnostic atheism) to not believing in the existence of deities. Agnosticism is not simply believing the existence of a deity is unknowable, it can also be thinking your (dis )belief in deities is uncertain

Philosophical discussions belong on Veeky Forums primarily

Charity is not by definition freely given. That is a superfluous addition you have made yourself. And sometimes force is required, if people are acting irrationally. Democracy means that if there are convincing arguments for or against socialised health care, it can change. If people disagree with the policy buy cannit produce such convincing arguments, then why would you not use force?

There are ways to decrease the demand, like making medical information freely available so people come in less often, non-emergency hotlines that require less time than doctor appointments, etc.
Unless you have comparable statistics for the US and other socially regressive countries, it's not much use to quote the statistics for countries with modern healthcare. And socialised healthcare is just there to provide a baseline healthcare service, people can opt for healthcare with lower waiting lists in the rare scenarios they need it for, and if they have the means.

A concussion

>healthy
Reddit isn't 'healthy' you literal prostitute.

>delusion
STEMspergs are already too far gone.
Go back to r*ddit.
>Here and now

Read this and realize the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

>it only enhances it
You're already presupposing meaning. Fucking redditors don't even know their own terribad ideology.

>meaning is created by you
Back to /r/eddit
fr*G 'philosophy' is for pathetic, vapid children

>atheists saying how a Christian should live

>brainlet with 0 will can't create a meaning for himself

pity is reserved for you

Le Letzter Mensch shitposter has arrived. I look forward to seeing you shit up this thread with "MUH LOGIC IS RIGHT CUZ LE grEEKs sed so".

Still just atheism. Stop trying to shove that fence pole up your ass.

go outside

>

>brainlet
Meaningless
>0 will
Meaningless
'creating meaning' is the statement of a vapid bourgeoisie child. derr derr ner gerd

*farts in your general direction*

He's going by what the bible says, which Christians aren't

It's not "just atheism" though since there is a clear distinction between gnostic and agnostic atheism, your reading comprehension is terrible

Deism, Panentheism or Pantheism are your best chances.

...

...

>picture
That's not God, it's a hesychast monk. God and his energies in orthodox Christianity are best described under "apothatic" doctrine - which the church uses. It's to speak of what God is not, to obliterate misconceptions and help prepare the mind for divine perception.

>uncreated lights
Also known as Tabor lights. They're a very large aspect of the orthodox faith, and furthered the schism between east and west. Orthodoxy continued the practise of the desert fathers unlike the west and it culminated in the "hesychast controversy." To this day many hesychast monks still follow the inward practice.

The mysticsm behind it has been in development since Plato who talked of experiencing the atemporal and aspatial underlying realities - in the church this is the concept of entering eternity, or the 8th day. The experience is beyond conceptual knowledge, and sadly has to be experienced first hand, though guidance is needed to prevent spiritual delusion or ecstasy.

For some people they may experience aspects of divine illumination unexpectedly early on in their faith, which becomes a huge guide - having the experience of the energy which guided the church. However dedication is needed to remain close to this grace.

>Good reads
After you've done a little Wikipedia hopping I suggest you read

"The Orthodox Church" and
"The orthodox way" by bishop Kallistos ware for good background.

Afterwards read the saying and teaching of the desert fathers, particularly St. macarius. Afterwards try reading the philokalia and the ladder of divine ascent.

"The heart itself is but a small vessel, yet there also are dragons and there are lions; there are poisonous beasts and all the treasures of evil. And there are rough and uneven roads; there are precipices. But there is also God, also the angels, the life and the kingdom, the light and the Apostles, the treasures of grace – there are all things."

>beyond conceptual knowledge, and sadly has to be experienced first hand
Wow, I should have listened to my inner edge lord. This bullshit is literally unfalsifiable delusion that's conveniently indescribable

How do you know the difference between a "" "" "" "" "" "" "" genuine""" "" "" "" "" " experience and (spiritual) delusion?

Did you really expect there to be no difference between reading about it and experiencing it? That Christianity or Buddhism held you could reach a state of deep spiritual illumination and peace through reading a book and having a lecture with nothing else?

If you want a philosophical or scholastic debate instead of spiritual development, or mysticsism try Catholicism, because Orthodoxy openly accepts it has no place in philosophical discourse.

It's beyond conceptual knoweldge in the way it's difficult to describe colours to people who can't see them. Again, there's plenty of people who will offer guidance and help describe as best they can experiences but God has no grandchildren, only children - you can't develop spiritually through proxy.

>difference between spiritual delusion and genuine experience

With the help of an elder like a starets, or spiritual brothers. Usually spiritual delusion comes about from people seeking spiritual experience and the vanity of it as an end in of itself. Instead of simply seeking truth.

>As an aside I came to Orthodoxy after developing an appreciation for Buddhism

No, but I expected some kind of way to know it was true than to experience it, because experience is shit. If it truly gives some kind of knowledge that's usually unattainable otherwise, you should be able to simply provide that knowledge

But how does that elder know the difference between a genuine experience and delusion? It's a house of cards where feels > reals

There isn't a way to know, just like there's no way to know who is actually in hell or is actually in heaven

No, there isn't a distinction, you illiterate turd.

Perhaps you should consider what atheism actually is instead of simply considering it a noun.
a/theos literally translates into without/god but more properly has been understood as a 'foregoing', or perhaps a 'telling-no'.
Your ridiculous adjectives are irrelevant, because regardless you are merely godless. The epistemology, regardless, is a 'telling-no'.

You're a nu-male looking to be as unoffensive as possible by shoving that fence pole as far up your ass as possible, so to never sway in the wind.

>durka durka its delusion becuz i dont understand
>delusion
No such thing exists, STEMsperg. All mysteries are inherently otherly, whether that other-thing is malevolent or not is something one must be trained to detect, and promptly reject.
>unfalsifiable
Why do redditors take this meme as dogma?

>experience is shit
so this is the power of logical positivism...
>reals
No such thing exists.

Again, mysticism and inward meditation which results in experiencing the uncreated energies does't follow a framework of legalistic principles, or even positive assertions or expectations. People do fall astray, especially if they don't prepare themselves properly or diligently smash delusions.

When people undertake these practises to the most extreme, they laboriously detach themselves from the passions and self-obsession. This is perineal practise in gnostic faiths that a person needs to do this to attune their mind and senses to transcendent realities.

Tl;dr
Follow the heart, and find inner peace. Don't approach a spiritual journey with legalistic Jewery or mental gymnastics.

>otherly
Spooky
Falsifiablility is important to actually know if something is true in the real world

I'm not a logical positivist, but the results of the application of logic to empirical findings are definitely the best way to know what is true and what actually works, if I had to choose
I mean reals in an empirical sense

And if you can't provide evidence, why should I trust my own senses and believe what you say? Shit's dumb

>spiritual journey
Cringe

>Falsifiablility is important to actually know if something is true in the real world
Why?
There is no real world you redditor.
>I'm not a logical positivist, but the results of the application of logic to empirical findings are definitely the best way to know what is true and what actually works
>becuz i sed so
so this is the power of reddit argumentation...

You are a logical positivist. You are a nihilist. You are an irrelevant STEMsperg.

And there are multiple ways to be without God, your eliminative reductionist approach to defining words is retarded, you can be godless in different ways

Wrong. Godlessness is itself.

Nice nonsensical claim, now substantiate it

>there is no real world
Why do you think so?

>muh pigeonholing

>substantiate it
Prepare yourself for the tidal wave of autism that he will hit you with in response to that.

...

I already did substantiate it. Perhaps you should read.
Agnostic atheism is like a shade of black. Black is an absence regardless of shade. It is absurd to say that one can be agnostically atheist because one cannot be agnostically theist. Certainty is requisite for both stances.
Thus, one can be atheistic, agnostic, or theistic. However, agnosis is still atheistic, like a shade of black is still black, but not white -- never white. One who is agnostic is, in fact, certainly agnostic -- that is, certainly atheistic because knowledge of God is requisite to be theistic. Even if this fantastical complete lack of stance agnosticism that your find parades overhead existed, it would still be an atheistic stance.
In short, 'agnostic atheism' is redundant, it's like 'black black'. 'agnostic theism' is absurd, like 'black white'. No, there is no 'grey'.

>Afterwards is irrelevant as afterwards is nothingness.
[citation needed]

my man. Witty and the Platonists need to be examined together.

Read Last Question by Isaac Asimov. It worked for me.

You don't have to convince me of Christianity. I just want to stop being a nihilist materialist who is dead inside. But every other position requires some absurd supernatural belief.

t. coping with loss

>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Counterpoint:

To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

Checkmate, Wittgenstein.

>Meaning is created by you

this doesn't mean anything

>absurd
>anything that i dont understand is le dumb

You could start with anything by dostoevsky

>no, you are dumb
>anime.jpg

I didn't want to believe that all thiests are children.

Decide to do so. Have you ever encountered something you had difficulty believing in after deciding to believe it? I haven't.

underrated