What I'm watching:
italian cavalry archers?
it's sad to see when beautiful girls play games instead of borning and nurturing kids
According to this video I am an Agnostic Atheist, who depending on the mood leans towards either Gnostic Atheism or Agnostic Deism.
In other words, I generally don't believe in a(ny) God(s); sometimes with a kind of certainty that borders on Gnosticism; but at the same time, I think it's possible that there could be a "higher power" out there that created the universe, but I don't really believe in it (enough).
So for me it's a matter of:
Theism is certainly "wrong" (as in incorrect), Deism is possible (under certain conditions), and Atheism is the most plausible (for now).
Like Dawkins, I live under the assumption that no God or higher power exists. And if a higher power does exist (in the Deistic sense), my behaviour would not really matter anyway. So either way, my lifestyle would stay the same. I'm not even worrying about offending any particular God(s) with my behaviour, because it is way too improbable they exist, to the point I am rather Gnostic in my belief of their absence. But the fact that I have the door open for some deistic beliefs renders me as an Agnostic.
Similarly, I am probably an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if god(s) exist, I'm skeptical of the existence of the god of the Abrahamic religions, as it seems painfully obvious that there is no evidence for this type of god. Christianity is laughably silly, but so are most religions that have such strong supernatural elements.
I think deism is a possibility, but I would rather substitute god with creator. I think life was created out of the universe naturally, but it has taken much longer than the time table we have on earth. I think it more likely that it began elsewhere first and earth life forms were perhaps created by an advanced alien race. Our creator would be like a god to us, but is not all powerful and all knowing, just really advanced. This isn't as unlikely as one thinks, considering how we have no clue how the first cell arose or how it could arise naturally. It makes sense that there are many pre-cell life forms that have been lost to time. Our first cell is just a branch of earlier life forms, or a more efficiently packaged life form created by an advanced civilization, likely now extinct. Maybe this would put me as a gnostic deist, lol. I don't know. I'm far from having the answers I seek.
Your reply actually sounds quite Deist, haha. You are an Agnostic Atheist when it comes to Abrahamic religions, but the rest pretty much sounded like Agnostic Deism, bordering on Gnostic perhaps, depending on far you go. But as a whole (see what I put in bold), I'd say Agnostic Deist.
I suppose it depends on how you are weighing this.
When it comes to Abrahamic religions, I am technically a Gnostic Atheist.
When it comes to the whole "creator/higher life force" spiel, I could be an Agnostic Deist.
My Atheism is much more pronounced than that little speck of Deist probability-thinking, so I am inclined to call myself an Atheist.
In your case, you'll have to assess yourself which of the two aspects has more significance in your thinking and blueprint of the world; are the main lines of the world's contours Atheistic or Deistic? Your main feature seems to be Agnosticism, however. ^^' So you could just call yourself an Agnostic.
halfway through this but wanted to post it. if you've watched the other Bret Weinstein Rogan podcasts you've heard him hint at and be coy about belonging to a movement of intellectuals looking into working out a way for society to have a decent future. He actually goes into that in this one after a brief synopsis of his Everygreen troubles (compared to other podcasts where it was the main topic) .
Last edited by bgbg; 12-20-2017 at 07:09 AM.