/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17212537]

Agnosticism isn’t a meme.
No human can prove or refute the existence of God or afterlife, for he is only human.
Therefore holding any strong beliefs about the ways of the universe without being able to confirm them is simply foolish.

[Anonymous No.17212546]

>>17212537
Have tried confirming them?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY
I suggest you start meditating

[Anonymous No.17212588]

>>17212537
If you have faith in your eyes you can have faith in god. If you have faith in anybody or anything to be certain, you can have faith in god.

Faith in sensory perception (of material objects) requires faith in your reason (a nonmaterial attribute). Therefore if you have faith in reason, you can have faith in god.

[Anonymous No.17212590]

>>17212546
*have you tried

[Anonymous No.17212593]

>>17212537
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.17212656]

>>17212588
Human sensory organs are far from perfect.
We can’t see all the colors, can’t hear most sounds and can’t feel things like radiation. There could be a whole another world stacked on top of ours and we’re just physically unable to see it.

[Anonymous No.17212980]

>>17212656
this

[Anonymous No.17213020]

>>17212656
Yeah but you’re still gonna act like there’s an obstacle in the road and swerve to avoid it. Read Descartes.

[Anonymous No.17213025]

>>17212537
Agnosticism is the only faithless position on God, thus atheism is a religion too.

[Anonymous No.17213047]

>>17212537
Unless you have experienced God, or had transcendental spiritual experiences.
You seem to assume God cannot be experienced.
If you have personally experienced God or have had transcendental experiences then you are justified in having strong belief in God.

[Anonymous No.17213074]

Jesus is God.

[Anonymous No.17213089]

>>17212546
what is this vid?

[Anonymous No.17213092]

>>17212537
Muh, logic. Yikes, anon.

[Anonymous No.17213194]

>>17212537

[Anonymous No.17213198]

agreed, it's a nothing word and it shouldn't irritate me but it does.

[Anonymous No.17213233]

>>17212537
I want to make you a question, not because i want to refute agnosticism, but because i want to show the possibility for theism and atheism to be chosen. What are words if not tools to describe linguistically stuff that is, by nature, extralinguistical? I'm, in fact, politically an atheist, not because i can prove god doesn't exist, but because i don't think we need his existence proven. I will always be closer to a theist than to an agnostic person, because i think agnosticism is just a scam and that language is just a political tool.

[Anonymous No.17213248]

>>17212537
>Therefore holding any strong beliefs about the ways of the universe without being able to confirm them is simply foolish.
I hope you’ve disregarded all science as well then because you take the immutable laws of logic and mathematics on sheer faith.

[Anonymous No.17214043]

The way I see it, if we start from the premise that the creation of the universe was a conscious and deliberate act, then that "creator" must necessarily exist beyond the laws of our universe. Since we are creatures of flesh bounded by five senses and four dimensions, it would be literally impossible for us to be able to conceive of such a being, and an act of truly astonishing delusion to claim to have a personal relationship with said creator.

Which is agnosticism, I suppose. If there is a "God," it necessarily exists beyond our ability to conceive it and certainly doesn't meddle directly in human affairs.

[Anonymous No.17214607]

>>17212537
Right

Know what process you're going to assume next?

Well - you'll either lean towards religion, or you'll lean away from it.

Now which is?
No agnostic forever walks along the path of agnosticism.
You will lead your life by the moral principles of a religion or you will guide yourself.

Much like anarchism, the agnostic state of mind is quickly fading - fall towards one belief or the other.

>https://youtu.be/9sXkdaR9llY

[Blarty Hongo !WegkZP4tiw No.17215133]

>>17212588
>If you can believe in X, you can believe in Y
Technically accurate, but not much of an argument in favor of believing in anything in particular.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.17215152]

>>17212588
Why can't I consider my sense data to be immediate? Do you pray to your eyes or some shit?

[Anonymous No.17215184]

>>17213025
>Agnosticism is the only faithless position on God
This is what bothers me so much about Neo-Atheism. If they were being really as "scientific" and skeptical as they claim the only "fair", coherent conclusion would be Agnosticism. Since they can't quite affirm or prove there is no God.

[Blarty Hongo !WegkZP4tiw No.17215201]

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Agnostics are atheists because they do not believe in a god.

[Anonymous No.17215265]

>>17215201
The attempt to redefine atheism has been debunked.

>Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[Anonymous No.17215280]

>>17213047
This.
Ive had many Spiritual experiences meditating, praying, dreaming and even just laying down. This is MY proof and no one can tell me otherwise.
>"For he cannot be heard with ears, nor seen with eyes, nor expressed in words; but only in mind and heart can he be known.
'The Divine Pymander'

[Anonymous No.17215291]

there are no agnostics in hell