#igtheism

[goddestroyer666]

Spanish is a better language because they say salud (good health) instead of God Bless You. I do consent to receive your blessings, if my sneezes are a sign of impending disease or death I DO NOT WANT YOUR BLESSINGS.

[pandeism]

Theology map. I have been hanging onto this one for so long, and have seen so many variations of it in so many places, I no longer have any idea where it first may have came from. #Theology #Map #Religion #TheologyMap #Theism #Atheism #Deism #Pantheism #Pandeism #Panentheism #Agnosticism #Monism #Polytheism #Skepticism #Nontheism #Omnism #Autotheism #Igtheism #Henotheism

[joga-luce]

Are you a satanist

I do not self-identify as such, no. I have studied satanism (laveyan; not recently) and i find most of the beliefs to overlap with my own. I support “promethean” religions in general; those that are for the self-empowerment of members through decentralizing the technology of religion, if that phraseology makes sense.

If I had to choose a terminology at the moment I would probably say I identify with something like “post-thelemic igtheism”, or “Cat Wizard”, though hard to pin down as i view religion/spirituality as a fluid space for consciousness, not hard edge category. In most regards i would say the sheer limiting nature of language prevents it from ever accurately describing any “spiritual” framework.

It’s late and i’m at work, but thank you for the question! it helps to try to articulate the ineffable, the outline around the void allows some sort of understanding, and practices helps trace the shifting edges.

[basedsushigoat-blog]

It is important not to confuse this view of religious assertions with the view that is adopted by atheists, or agnostics. For it is characteristic of an agnostic to hold that the existence of a god is a possibility in which there is no good reason either to believe or disbelieve; and it is characteristic of an atheist to hold that it is at least probable that no god exists. And our view that all utterances about the nature of God are nonsensical, so far from being identical with, or even lending any support to, either of these familiar contentions, is actually incompatible with them. For if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion is that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted. As for the agnostic, although he refrains from saying either that there is or that there is not a god, he does not deny that the question whether a transcendent god exists is a genuine question. He does not deny that the two sentences "There is a transcendent god" and "There is no transcendent god" express propositions one of which is actually true and the other false. All he says is that we have no means of telling which of them is true, and therefore ought not to commit ourselves to either. But we have seen that the sentences in question do not express propositions at all. And this means that agnosticism also is ruled out.

A.J Ayer's Language, Truth and God, from Language, Truth and Logic 

[basedsushigoat-blog]

It is to be remarked that in cases where deities are identified with natural objects, assertions concerning them may be allowed to be significant. If, for example, a man tells me that the occurrence of thunder is alone both necessary and sufficient to establish the truth of the proposition that Jehovah is angry, I may conclude that, in his usage of words, the sentence "Jehovah is angry" is equivalent to "It is thundering." But in sophisticated religions, though they may be to some extent based on men's awe of natural process which they cannot sufficiently understand, the "person" who is supposed to control the empirical world is not himself located in it; he is held to be superior to the empirical world, and so outside it; and he is endowed with super-empirical attributes. But the notion of a person whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all. We may have a word which is used, as if it named this "person," but, unless the sentences in which it occurs express propositions which are empirically verifiable, it cannot be said to symbolize anything. And this is the case with regard to the word "god," in the usage in which it is intended to refer to a transcendent object. The mere existence of the noun is enough to foster the illusion that there is a real, or at any rate a possible entity corresponding to it. It is only when we enquire what God's attributes are that we discover that "God," in this usage, is not a genuine name.

A.J Ayers, Language Truth and God, from Language, Truth and Logic

[subjecttoquibble-blog]

Ignosticism / Igtheism

I came across these two words while browsing the link in my previous post, the explanation is hard to grasp at first but never the less rather interesting. it states in the description that it is an outdated term and is extinct, even so have a read through and see if you share anything in common with an "igtheist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism