Is this true?

everything you have posted is pure falsehood and fiction.
nihilism told me so.

Everything is equally true and false.

>>19430725

which comes first?

nihilism, which leads to being either gnostic/ agnostic / atheist/ theist combination

or do you first have to become become agnostic/gnostic/ atheistic/ theistic before becoming nihilistic (I would guess its a symptom of being a gnostic atheist, or you may not really know what nihilism is other than being an edgy faggot)

>>19430717
No one can KNOW, so "Gnostic atheists" and Gnostic theists" don't exist, it's just a concept.

Nah, gnostic/agnostic just makes it more confusing.
You're an atheist if you believe that the evidence points to there being no god and a theist if you think the opposite.
You're an agnostic if you think there isn't enough evidence to believe either.

>>19430717
Agnostic atheist
>tfw to intelligent
Gnostic atheist
>god is dead because nietzsche le based ebin nihilist said so
Agnostic theist
>gonna need a comfy seat for this fence
Gnostic theist
>THE ARCHON WHO IS WEAK HAS THREE NAMES
pick a side carefully

Yes, gnostic in a non-sectarian sense is the view that the information about a subject can be fully understood by a human. Agnosticism is the view that there are things that are simply impossible for a human to know. Doesn't matter how much data we gather, how much we know now, how much better at knowing we will get - an agnostic says we will NEVER fully know about the subject.

So say you are an empirical materialist: the world is completely explained by physical processes ad the only discernment of truth is through verifiable (usually repeatable) sensory information. Well if someone holding this view thinks that given enough time we will work out all the physical laws and that with any phenomenon we can go "ah yes, that's how this works" - that is a gnostic view. Another might say there will always be some part of nature that remains inexplainable, or that all our laws and theories are just models of a true reality that we cannot understand because it must filter through our senses. This would be an agnostic take on empirical materialism.

>>19430725
>>19430726
These are about viewpoints, not what is true.

>>19430753
Depends on your understanding of what nihilism means, or which nihilist philosopher you put more stock into. I would say most nihilists fall into agnostic atheism. The issue is that the pic references agnosticism only in relation to the existence of God. Agnosticism can be applied to any subject of knowledge.

>>19430920
It's about viewpoint, not truth. Plenty of people KNOW things that are not true.

>>19430942
All you did is restate exactly what the pic says.

The image is not debating the existance of God, it's showing you the view points of those philosophies (atheist, theist, agnostic, gnostic).

So, yes, the image is true, because that's what those philosophies literally belive.

>>19430717
No.

>>19430725

All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

>>19430978
Actually Neitzsche's main point was that if god is dead there's no central value structure underpinning society and that it will be necessary for people to define values on their own in the absence of said structure. His examplar of doing so was his creation Zarathustra.

>>19432694
Except Zarathustra was a historical figure that brought the concept of monotheism to Persia.

>>19430717
Agnostic atheist is what most atheists are, and if they're not they're retarded. The thing is that it's a useless label that literally no atheist gives a fuck about.

>>19432939
What about someone who just simply doesn't care whether or not a god or higher being exists?

>>19432755
That was Zoroaster, thus his codes are called Zoroastrianism. He was also known as Zarathustra Avestan, and it was this name that Neitzsche adopted to promulgate essentially an anti-Zoroaster message.

>For what constitutes the tremendous historical uniqueness of that Persian is just the opposite of this. Zarathustra was the first to consider the fight of good and evil the very wheel in the machinery of things: the transposition of morality into the metaphysical realm, as a force, cause, and end in itself, is his work. [...] Zarathustra created this most calamitous error, morality; consequently, he must also be the first to recognize it. [...] His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality [...]—Am I understood?—The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.

>>19432939
Douglas Adams, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, and many more prominent atheists are gnostic atheists.

>>19432984
Because the original Zarathustra existed the idea of Nietzsche's Zarathustra holds a more prominent gravity. Which is an idea lifted from Ralph Waldo Emmerson's "Circles."

wow an actually good thread on x

>>19432755
>Except Zarathustra was a historical figure that brought the concept of monotheism to Persia.
Yeah no

>>19430717
LMAO this is Seinfeld atheism. "What's the deal with believing in God?" Atheism is a tiger, it seeks to destroy all Gods. It is not this decadent splitting of hairs over the functionally trivial. Atheism is political, it is revolutionary, it aims to shine the light of inquiry of all that may hide from it. This isn't atheism, it's what happens when Christianity infects atheism.

>>19433100
Wikipedia says otherwise.

>>19433068
>Because the original Zarathustra existed the idea of Nietzsche's Zarathustra holds a more prominent gravity.
Not really. If not Zoroaster, then another would have stated morality as the highest truth. It's the idea, not the person. And when we get to the idea, all you've done is say the same thing Neitzsche did, but with less finesse.

>"Circles"
Again, not really. Emerson was talking about inclusion - about drawing a new circle around the old. Neitzsche quite clearly says the first circle was wrong, and he is tearing it down. Erasing it.

>>19433119
What supercilious nonsense.
Atheist =/= anti-theist
Atheist =/= anti-religion

Atheism is a lack of belief about one specific subject. Atheism wouldn't seek to destroy gods - to do so would be to tacitly agree that gods exist.

>>19433122
First, if Zarathustra had never existed then it does not mean by necessity that someone else would state the same things he did. I understand that he is arguing against the ideas. I'm simply stating that Zarathustra's original character makes an important allusion to the real Zarathustra. Without Zarathustra as a historical being Zarathustra the character has less impact.

Which brings me to your second point about "Circles." I get what Nietzsche is doing but the circle I refer to is the one being drawn around Zarathustra the historical figure.

>>19433157
>First, if Zarathustra had never existed then it does not mean by necessity that someone else would state the same things he did.
The necessity comes from the accepted and ubiquitous nature of his views. Almost all people from everywhere around the world came to same conclusion of moral truth.

>Without Zarathustra as a historical being Zarathustra the character has less impact.
then Nietzsche would have called it Thus Spake Confucious or Thus Spake Aristotle. He chose the name because Zoroaster was historically first, that's it.

>the circle I refer to is the one being drawn around Zarathustra the historical figure.
I disagree that what Nietzsche did was draw a circle in the sense that Emmerson was using. He didn't draw a circle, he was erasing a previous circle.

>>19433173
Why does the necessity come from the acceptance of Zarathustra's views? If Aristotle never came up with the classical syllogism, I don't think that someone else somewhere down the line would eventually come up with the same idea. Believing that someone would eventually come up with some idea is known as a "myth of progress."

>He didn't draw a circle, he was erasing a previous circle.
Elaborate, please.

>>19432969

Then you are an agnostic atheist.

There is no middle ground or burying your head in the sand.

If there is a pencil on the table, and I don't pick it up, there is no pencil in my hand.

It doesn't matter why I refused to pick it up, even if I said "this is stupid" and walked away, there is still no pencil on my hand.

By not believing, you are not believing. Mind blowing I know.

Belief takes action.

All babies are born agnostic atheist.

Gnostic Theist but I believe Jesus wasn't the son of God but rather a false messiah.

>>19433287
>Why does the necessity come from the acceptance of Zarathustra's views?
Because they aren't HIS views, they are apparently the standard human view. Just like the invention of zero: no matter which culture came up with it first, many cultures did so independently.

>I don't think that someone else somewhere down the line would eventually come up with the same idea.
You can think that, but it's denying the evidence that people DID. Cultures with no contact with Zoroastrianism developed the idea of moral truth. It is that advancement of morality into the ideal that Nietzsche was warring against.

>Believing that someone would eventually come up with some idea is known as a "myth of progress."
First, it isn't a belief, it's an acknowledgement of history that the concept of a moral ideal has developed and been accepted in every culture across the world. Second, I am not saying this was improvement. And neither is Nietzsche, quite the opposite. I AM saying this is change, and change that - being fully dependent on the psychology of homo sapiens - is bound to show up in human societies in similar ways. In the same way the concept of zero is bound to eventually show up in any system of arithmetic.

If you can find a culture that didn't develop a moral ideal at some point, then I will reconsider.
>Elaborate, please.
Emmerson
>Our culture is the predominance of an idea which draws after it this train of cities and institutions. Let us rise into another idea: they will disappear.
Nietzsche
>His doctrine, and his alone, posits truthfulness as the highest virtue; this means the opposite of the cowardice of the "idealist” who flees from reality

Nietzsche pointedly denies the Transcendentalism of Emmerson. He is completely rejecting the concept of a "higher view."

>>19433332
Why is there no middle ground? On some matters there should be gradient scales.This I believe should be one of those. I'm not talking about belief, I'm talking about not caring. Whether God exists or not it doesn't really matter. What if I pick the pencil up but I also don't? What if I believe in God but I also don't? What then?

Okay then.
So what if I don't believe there is a god in the traditional sense? No high and mighty maker, whatever he might be called. I think gods are thought forms that have been fed to their stature for many years by many people to the point where they're largely independent but cannot break the character they've been given. And ya know, maybe that's bullshit, but I think it's a likely scenario.
I've been calling myself agnostic because I don't much associate with belief, kind of think it's silly to put my eggs in one basket when I don't fucking know. So, what the fuck am I boys?

It misrepresents things. I'm a Gnostic theist technically but that doesn't mean I'm automatically an idiotic asshole.

>>19433370
> Just like the invention of zero: no matter which culture came up with it first, many cultures did so independently.
Why did these cultures come up with these ideas independently? What makes these ideas part of the "human view"?
> It is that advancement of morality into the ideal that Nietzsche was warring against.
I agree.
>I AM saying this is change, and change that - being fully dependent on the psychology of homo sapiens - is bound to show up in human societies in similar ways. In the same way the concept of zero is bound to eventually show up in any system of arithmetic.
I agree that the idea of morality can show up in just about any society. But are they all the same? Is morality the same for each society? I would say they are not. I apologize if I was not being clear, but I mean to say that if Zoroaster's particular truths were not preached then it wouldn't follow that those particular truths would be uttered at some point down the line.
>If you can find a culture that didn't develop a moral ideal at some point, then I will reconsider.
First, define moral idea for me.

>Nietzsche pointedly denies the Transcendentalism of Emmerson. He is completely rejecting the concept of a "higher view."
Thank you, and I now see a clear difference between the two. But what I am confused by is how Nietzsche can reject the ideal and place truth above it. It sounds like, from where I'm standing, he is placing a higher view on truth.

>>19433444
>So what if I don't believe there is a god in the traditional sense?
The chart works for any topic of knowledge, just remove the "theist" part. For instance, you can put "man and dinosaurs existed at the same time" and you have

believe, but can't know
believe, and know
don't believe, but can't know
don't believe, and know

Some subjects are more stupid to chart out than others, but the chart is still there.

>I've been calling myself agnostic because I don't much associate with belief, kind of think it's silly to put my eggs in one basket when I don't fucking know. So, what the fuck am I boys?
Soft agnostic. Hard agnosticism is more than saying "I don't know if it's true." Hard agnosticism takes the stance that truly knowing is impossible.

>>19433529
>Why did these cultures come up with these ideas independently? What makes these ideas part of the "human view"?
How does this affect the historical fact of it happening? Agree to it happening and I'll consent to considering how and why.

>I agree that the idea of morality can show up in just about any society.
Not can, did.

>But are they all the same? Is morality the same for each society?
Doesn't matter. That humans all developed languages doesn't mean they all developed the same one, nor does it mean there is a fundamental difference from one language to another.

>if Zoroaster's particular truths were not preached then it wouldn't follow that those particular truths would be uttered at some point down the line
It doesn't have to follow. It doesn't need a reason - it HAPPENED (I am cringing every time I write that damn word, stupid 4chan). You are saying there's no reason a rock has to fall over after watching it fall over.

>particular truths
Keep in mind we are not talking about what Zoroaster specifically said. It doesn't matter what he thought the moral ideal was. It was the concept of a moral ideal at all that we are discussing. Two completely different and contradictory ideas on what the moral ideal is STILL is evidence that humans develop a moral ideal.

>First, define moral idea for me.
Do you have issue with this definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_(ethics)#Relative_ideal
(cont)

>>19433644
>how Nietzsche can reject the ideal and place truth above it
Does he?
http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/ntruth.html
>What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

If there is any ideal which can be put on his view, I would say it is Will. And not so much in that Will is something to strive for, but that it is the engine that drives anyone toward any ideal.

It is very late for me. This was delightful, but I must be off to bed. I'll wait for one reply.

>>19433558
That's sort of along the lines of what I've been thinking but in the theist/atheist bit I just don't know where that leaves me. I feel like I'm not even in between, just not on the scale at all.

>>19433907
Nigger it's fucking simple.
I don't believe in a god: atheist.
I don't believe in a god but I don't rule out all conceptions of a god: atheist.
I don't give a shit: apatheist (technically an atheist)
I believe in a god: theist
I don't know, you cannot know, there is no conclusive evidence: agnostic
The gnostic/agnostic part has nothing to do with atheism/theism as a proposition but has to do with epistemology instead and really muddles the discourse.
Here is an explanation if the terms as they are commonly used by people that know what they're doing.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

>>19433983
Thanks, I'll give that a read.

>>19430920
people certainly can know, just doesn't mean they are right.
people "know" because they refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong

Eh, mostly.
Then there's the opinions of
A: Not caring (apathy)
and
B: Believing in a contradiction
C: Believing that God is too broad of a concept to classify yourself as any of the above

Come on OP, don't be a pleb and fit in the box.

>>19430717
God Is, Is is God.

is it possible to not believe but adopt the mindset of a believer to better understand what they believe?

File: jesus shrug.jpg (216KB, 739x759px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 739x759px

>>19430717
>Is this true?
Hell no. There's no place available for "I don't know, therefore I refuse to commit to a position until I determine one way or the other," or "I don't know, and neither do you, so stop making a big deal about it." Nor does it provide for "Well, what do you MEAN by 'god' in the first place?"

In any case, a claim for knowledge does not satisfy any genuine need for knowledge if both sides can claim "knowing" their position. So the gnostic/agnostic dynamic as depicted here is flawed from the beginning.

TL;DR: Religious beliefs are much too complicated to describe with a two-axis chart that results in only four options.

>>19435130
There's a term for what you're looking for: Ignostic.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. It is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed.

bumpe

>>19434947
It called "contemplating" or "hypothesizing."

>>19435130
The chart isn't about religious beliefs. You can put any subject of knowledge into the chart. Do you believe in Montana?

>I believe Montana exists, and that it is possible to fully know this.
>I believe Montana exists, but it is not possible to fully know this.
>I don't believe Montana exists, and it is possible to fully know this.
>I don't believe Montana exists, but this cannot be fully known.

>There's no place available for "I don't know, therefore I refuse to commit to a position until I determine one way or the other,"
This is not a position. It clearly states it is not a position.
>I refuse to commit to a position
When this person DOES commit to a position, it will be some variation on one of the four.

>"I don't know, and neither do you, so stop making a big deal about it."
That's called agnosticism. Now what do you BELIEVE?

>"Well, what do you MEAN by 'god' in the first place?"
The chart assumes you have already defined the subject of knowledge. This is like someone has said a parabola has two x-axis intercepts and you refuse to agree or disagree because they didn't define "x-axis." If this is your position then that means you haven't educated yourself enough to be in the conversation.

>the gnostic/agnostic dynamic as depicted here is flawed from the beginning.
The dynamic is NOT about how strong your conviction is; whether you say "I think" or "I know." The dynamic is whether the information CAN be known.

Consider the knowledge of other people's inner lives. Do other people have an inner life? Is everyone you meet just a P-zombie NPC, or are they as conscious and aware as you? Some might say yes, some might say no. That is the belief part.

But the question is whether this information can ever be fully known. Currently, I bet most would say no - there is no way to fully KNOW whether other people have an inner life. You can study and compare and get a pretty strong conviction, but there is no way to REALLY know. Thus solipsism.

I want to believe.

>>19435553
Doesn't fit the chart though.

>>19436577
A proper agnostic would believe that one cannot prove or disprove anything without adequate evidence, wouldn't he?

Unfortunately, the dynamic IS about the strength of their beliefs, which inherently is the wrong definition. Should be "hard" or "soft" theism or atheism.

Actual knowledge is unavailable, and whether a person believes it can be known or not is irrelevant compared to whether it actually IS known or not.

>>19430717
Yes, all atheists have beards.

>>19437837
>A proper agnostic would believe that one cannot prove or disprove anything without adequate evidence, wouldn't he?
Depends what they mean agnostic. Some would agree. I, as hard agnostic, think that it means humans simply do not have the ability to obtain complete knowledge. We can isolate/examine/learn about parts of reality, but there are things that will be beyond our grasp through our own limitation or by the lack of limitations in the multiverse.

>Should be "hard" or "soft" theism or atheism.
Agnosticism is not solely about theism. I think all subjects of knowledge can lead to an endless route of inquiry and unknowns. The existence of God is one of those subjects - one that seems to have little supporting evidence. But when dealing with a hypothetical omnipotent being who doesn't want there to be evidence - what can you expect?

For instance the subject could be whether the universe has an edge. You could believe this or not believe this. You can also claim this knowledge is possible or impossible to know.
>Edge exists, and one day we will observe or reach or understand it
>Edge exists, but due to Expansion and the speed of light, it will forever be beyond our perception
>Edge exists, and somehow, one day we will prove this
>Edge exists, but because of our limitations there will always be the possibility the edge is just beyond our limits

>Should be "hard" or "soft" theism or atheism.
But you can really REALLY believe there is a God, but not think there is any way to prove it. In fact many Christians are agnostic theists in that they think God has made it impossible to "prove" his existence because he wants people to have faith. Their faith is incredibly strong, but they will be the first to say they don't KNOW, they can't prove it.

>Actual knowledge is unavailable
Ahh, it seems the problem is you've a priori taken an agnostic stance on knowledge in general. Of course you would disagree with anyone claiming a gnostic stance.

Definitions of God are too conflated to claim you believe/disbelieve in him and retain any significant meaning.

If my idea of God is not the same as yours, then which of us is the atheist?