Identification preferences

LOL… Yes, they assert they have special knowledge. I can not argue with that. On the other hand… The value I place on their brand of special knowledge and their ineffectiveness at defending that brand of special knowledge, still makes them agnostic as hell in my book. They have as much special knowledge as the average psych ward patient believing he is talking with God. I just don’t attribute much credibility to personal revelation. I have not seen it stand against critical inquiry yet. As soon as they break down and admit to belief based on “faith” I consider them Agnostic. They actually know nothing about god or gods.

“Specialis” or “peculiaris” are latin translations for ‘special’.
I quite like the term ‘peculiaris gnostic’ which infers a personal aspect. It’ll fit on a tshirt too.

Oh absolutely. I’ve met people who can describe god in detail . One of my dotty teachers could also give an accurate description of hell. Seems it’s all about fire ,getting burned yet never being consumed.

Yair; religious belief is not based on reason or facts, but on faith. IE “belief in that not seen”. A pretty good definition of superstition imo.

No believer can know, but that doesn’t stop them from claiming to know. In terms of outrageous beliefs, I think Hindus take the biscuit.

It’s more than just the Christians though isn’t it?
Some people assert that they have knowledge of a deistic god; I’d agree that rn there isn’t any good reason to believe, but nonetheless if they’re right, then they would’ve been gnostic all along.

Yep probably should. Thanks.

Here here! Give this man a cookie! Professed belief, in my book, does not qualify as 'knowledge." If it did, every fucking god on the planet would be just as real as every other fucking god on the planet… ??? … *** Bilnking ---- Reading that last sentence again. **** Wait a minute? They do all seem as exactly as real as one another. They are as real as one another with or without knowledge? OUCH! What have I done to my head!

Hi everyone, I am new here.

I think it’s very necessary for me to introduce myself first before posting any questions or replies, because without introducing myself first I think it would be difficult for members here to engage with me freely or wholeheartedly. Actually perfectly I neither fit in theists nor I fit in atheists because of my philosophies and understanding of God and religions. Though I signed up as an agnostic I am not agnostic, but because I can’t fit in either of theists or atheists, I simply chose agnostic as there’s no option for entering any fourth category in this site. If I simply say myself a theist, it would probably be very hurtful to people generally called as theists.

I am philosophical theist, which means I accept the religious doctrine if it can be discerned by reason and contemplation of natural laws, otherwise I don’t. I mainly try to understand God through understanding nature.

Why don’t I fit among theists?

Because I think religions are always created by devil or Satan and never by God. God don’t create religions or do anything which cannot be objectively knowable. God is determinist, and create things on the basis of logic, mathematics, perfect cause and effect, which are actually knowable without intervention of God or a prophet. God don’t speak rhetorically, poetically, which would be interpreted differently and will create conflict. God will only speak so objectively that couldn’t be interpreted differently. It can be interpreted in only one way. There are more logic why I think religions are always created by Devil or Satan, and these are logic not just reason. Logic and reason are two different things. Logic comes from understanding natural cause and effect, while reason could be effect of man-made cause. So there’s a logic which I would like to share with you all that why I think so. So I think I am right in thinking that it is hurtful to other theists to call myself as a theist. This is why I can’t fit among theists.

Why I don’t fit in atheists?

Because I am a theist, and a perfect theist. That means I actually believe that God exist and is knowable. I believe in miracles, mysterious occurrences and supernaturals. I don’t think everything can be understood through physics. Physics fails to tell you anything related to life. You can’t understand biology using physics. I think consciousness is fundamental property or basic element of universe, and things related to life can be understood through understanding of consciousness. This is why even for atheists I could be very irritating, maybe.

So I thought it would be better if I introduce myself first before posting any questions or replies, otherwise it maybe possible that nobody would like engage with me. But because there seems no introduction section in this forum, I used this thread to introduce myself. So, to site admin, if I did something seriously wrong by signing in as an agnostic, then please change it to what you think would be appropriate.

I speak from logic, that means from understanding of nature or the phenomena inherent in nature. This I would like to share with you all.

So tell me, what you think of me from my introduction.

Some things can be understood through biology, chemistry, history… there are various fields of study, not just physics.

And btw - “experiencing” something or “imagining” something is not the same as “knowledge or knowing”… ( 1. the state of being aware or informed.)

Welcome :blush:

1 Like

Seems to me that you are a theist. The fact that you might be a considered weird by other theists, doesn’t mean you aren’t a theist. I’m saying you certainly meet the definition of theist that is commonly used around here. :woman_shrugging:

1 Like


Interesting claim. You can prove that of course?

As far as I’m aware any claims made about god(s) ,the devil and anything else which cannot be seen or measured is unfalsifiable. To put it another way, god cannot be argued into or out of existence.

Reason and logic are unreliable tools for arriving at truths. In formal logic, rules of inference begin with;
IF A then-----. An argument may be perfectly valid but the conclusion untrue. This is not an absolute rule, but it’s a handy one.

From your post, it seems your beliefs are based on faith. IE you believe in things unseen. That my friend is a definition of superstition.

I don’t care if your believe if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, until you begin making unfounded claims as you have. Your philosophical approach comes across as no more reasonable than any other personal superstitions

The word agnostic has nothing to do with belief, nor is it limited to god(s). It comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning knowledge. “Agnostic” a=without gnosis=knowledge.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I do not believe in god(s) and do not claim to know. I’m agnostic and about thousands of things, ranging from how to write computer code to the strange sport Americans call football…

By definition, if you are not agnostic about god(s) you are gnostic, IE possessing knowledge. Positive claims attract the burden of proof. That includes anything you belief which you have concluded through reason and philosophy

Attempting to discover god through observing a nature is a form of argument from intelligent design . Our world and the universe is full of wondrous things only a very few of which we understand. Using logic it is not reasonable to say “Gee, look that! How wonderful, how glorious-----therefore god”

Philosophical theism does not demonstrate the existence of god(s) A thirty second search turned up many critiques of your position. I good idea to check when you have what you think is a good idea.

Below a few links. Might be a good idea to glance at them,.



Thanks Whitefire13 :blush:

You are right that different aspects of reality needs different field of study to be discovered, but those who think miracles or supernaturals are impossible, theists and atheists alike, seem to think that such realities should be explained through physics, rather than anything else.

And btw - “experiencing” something or “imagining” something is not the same as “knowledge or knowing ”… ( 1. the state of being aware or informed. )

Also, not experiencing something or not imagining something should not be accounted as the basis or criteria for knowledge. Some people talk about their inexperience as an experience, and they derive a conclusion on the basis of their inexperience or absence of experience, which should not be considered as valid approach to assert something to be a knowledge. What do you think?

Yes, I am certainly theist, but the fact that I think that religions can only be made by Satan or Devil and not God exclude me from the theistic group so much that it feels very awkward to be considered in the group of theists(from p.o.v. of theists), because theists are generally religious and belong to some religion. Some theists are non-religious but they don’t think that only Satan can establish a religion.


Interesting claim. You can prove that of course?

I can prove or show on the basis of logic but not science.

As far as I’m aware any claims made about god(s) ,the devil and anything else which cannot be seen or measured is unfalsifiable. To put it another way, god cannot be argued into or out of existence.

I think the contrary, that science or anything related to knowledge is actually about showing, explaining or revealing the unseen or invisible, with significant degree of certainty. Knowledge or truth is all about rules, laws which cannot be seen, but discovered and understand. You can measure some hidden realities only after discovering them, and discovering them or understanding them means discovering the laws and not just a thing. For example, if you know that electron, proton and neutron exists doesn’t mean that you know all of chemistry or particle physics. You need to know the laws about how they interact and how they can be influenced by other factors, and lot of things about them. Other example is, just because you can see the car and measure its dimensions doesn’t mean you know all the technology behind the car and you can actually make such car. No, making such car needs a knowledge which can’t be acquired by just seeing the car, you need to actually understand it, which is all about understanding the laws which are invisible or unseen.

From your post, it seems your beliefs are based on faith. IE you believe in things unseen. That my friend is a definition of superstition.

No, I think my beliefs are based on logic and some observation of nature, which I would like to share with you all. Let me put forward my philosophical or logical position first about why I think what I just mentioned in my introduction.

Physics introduced quantum “weirdness” from a wave/particle to effect before cause to entanglement…also (used now in quantum computers) the quality of being both “on and off”. The word they chose actually accurately described what these scientists “experienced”. They didn’t choose quantum “miracles”.

A miracle: (your usage) not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Your usage of “supernatural” likewise (a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature)

…Require a standard for evidence to back such a claim.

…OR have explanations (think illusions or tricks or deceit)

Every person (perhaps a few who’s brain :brain: may not process in the same manner) experience EVERYTHING as we use our IMAGINATIONS. “Memory”, “story telling”, “explanations for observations”…

Ohhh - that one! “Explanations for observations”. This is science. Peer review (challenge to both explanation and observation and test ability)…one of first steps to ensure both
(explanation/observation) are as close to what is “true” as humanity can get.

BTW “imagination” is what is behind (explanation) “Multiple Universe”; “Simulation”
(we are in a computer of sorts); AND others…

Some of these proposals/papers suggest future “testing methods”…basis for paper may be backed by maths or such…BUT until evidence is provided - I play with and enjoy the idea :bulb: however withhold a high level of confidence (belief).

Now, you perhaps have accepted your deity to be Satan? Understandable, given such a strong Christian influence (or perhaps other religions).
I would like to introduce you to Loki…
Out of all the imaginative, make-believe, invisible friends - he’s the one I’m rooting for and his behaviour is more accurate to “god descriptions by man in holy books”…
OR (Loki is just a side to “us” as humans we don’t like to examine in ourselves)…

More modern:

No, you can’t. Even if what you originally said was true (about the origins of religions), you still won’t be able to prove it with logic. The fact that you think you can suggests to me you don’t really know what it means to work with logic. We commonly get theists here who pontificate about logic until they are blue in the face, only to show they don’t know what logic even is. Perhaps we can not repeat the past and address this directly. For example:

Statement A: If 6 = 7, then 8 = 9.

Is that statement logically true or false, and why (a proof would be nice)?

I offer you this opportunity demonstrate that you aren’t just making it up as you go along, like so many before you.


Oh dear, another one. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god(s). There is no such thing as an atheist position on anything else

Straw man fallacy. I’ve never seen anyone here make such a claim. In fact such a claim is common among believers. It’s a logical fallacy called ‘argument from ignorance’ . EG “I’m too ignorant, too stupid or too unimaginative to think of anything else, therefor god did it”. This line of thinking is commonly used in claiming miracles.

I have never said that miracles or god for that matter are impossible. I do not believe in either for the same reason; lack of empirical evidence. Anyone making a claim of “x was a miracle” or “I believe in god(s)” attracts the burden of proof. It is up to them to demonstrate the proof of their belief(s), not to me to disprove them.

I would love to know how you can speak so authoritatively about your god. Almost as if you could sit down and have a cup of tea with it.

So where does this amazing knowledge of yours come from?

You’ve made this too complicated and tedious.
You are a gnostic theist.
You are definitely not an atheist. Fine, no problem.
You believe in your ‘God’ and your ‘Devil’ and you believe they can be proven and known by philosophy and contemplation. That’s Gnosticism, special knowledge.
Gnostic theist.
Gnostics have it hard.
An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ‘God’, by definition is ineffable, and being beyond expression makes it impossible for any contemplation about it being even reasonably compelling.
Philosophical theists don’t have it any easier, no-one has ever reasoned ‘God’ into existence, outside human imagination.

There is no claim that physics can explain everything. That’s your first strawman, I think.
You have a limited understanding of the various fields of science and their relationships. Physics and chemistry are the two primary research areas in science. They complement each other and sometimes it can be difficult to determine where one starts or finishes in respect to the other. Both fields are distinct but interrelated. Both are fundamental to biology and its impossible to understand the operations of nature without either.
Consciousness is only a fundamental function of an active living human brain. Its an extremely localised phenomenon and has little elemental purpose for the universe which has existed blissfully unconcerned without it for 14 billion years.

Understanding human consciousness can can only inform us about ourselves, and amazing beneficial discoveries have already been made in neurological research about how we feel, see, hear, think and even heal ourselves. It also reveals how and why many people believe in divine agencies. It has little to show us about the universe other than how we perceive it. It has next to no effect on it. The world turns regardless of thoughts.

You might well speak from logic, but logic is not necessarily a path to truth unless the premises are shown to actually be true, ie as shown by evidence provided by repeatable experimentation. This undefined "understanding of phenomena inherent in nature’ sounds like the usual meaningless theistic poetry.

You are only mildly irritating. You have already shown how tedious you can be about labels. You are a gnostic theist, simple.
By all means present your position but if you are just going to show us how clever you are with the usual pre-suppositionalist philosophy and fatuous word salads, I will pass. I only felt the need to correct you on your ignorant comments about science and that in itself is not a good sign in the hope for an informed debate.

With all honesty good luck, but you better be prepared. There are many here who are formidable and most unforgiving in debate. Choose your words wisely.


You should never ask such a question unless you can handle all of the answers. However, seeing as you’ve asked: So far just another ignorant and arrogant presuppositional apologist. We tend to average about least one a week. It truly gets very tedious. You asked.

1 Like

Okay, so everyone should read this please.

When you quote please quote significant portion of the paragraph and not just one line. Such practices makes it difficult to understand to exactly which argument you are replying. One line or part of the line don’t perfectly represent the argument. I see that members here generally quote one lines and even few words of the line and reply to it casually, but please don’t do this to me at least.

Few years back I had been the member of philosophical site, so I am habitual to post lengthy replies. I hope it won’t bother you. I would like if you do the same. But please don’t reply in one line. Explain your point of view clearly and thoroughly. This makes everyone’s thoughts deeper and exchanges valuable, and help better our understanding of things. I am saying this because I see sometimes members here reply in in one line just on the basis of their prejudices about theists, without explaining their position properly.

By the replies I got, I get the impression that atheists here are very prejudicial about the theists and attack them with all their preconceived ideas about them, ridicule them, and underestimate them because they are not likely to be one in billions like Einstein, Galileo or Newton who will tell or explain to you something concrete objectively. You attack them so ruthlessly that they run away and you people get the impression that you defeated one more fool.

Of course, they are very less likely to be one in billions who will prove what is still unproved since thousands of years with probably millions of people tried and died. But this doesn’t mean that you should discourage them from imagining, thinking, theorizing and trying to discover the evidence. They are doing their part and very likely to not be successful, but that doesn’t mean it can never be proved what they want to prove because millions tried and died. One in billions prove something. If Einstein wouldn’t have proved the theory of relativity that doesn’t not mean that anyone else could have proved that. It is possible that another 100 years would pass to discover relativity if Einstein wouldn’t have proved that. So some things are difficult to prove, and we are just common people, one among many, but also unique individual in our own way, and we can try. So, please don’t judge me on the basis of what other people had been able to do till now.


Yes, quantum “weirdness” actually accurately describes what scientists experienced, and there’s no need to call it quantum miracles, because they can this weirdness every time they conduct the experiments, just it doesn’t behave the way nature generally behave. I don’t know quantum mechanics or physics much but what I got from what I read is that it’s behavior is not determinable, and nature’s behavior is generally determinable.

Miracles are different in it’s appearance that it doesn’t happen all the time. You can’t observe it whenever you want. It’s happens in relation to the level of reality we live in. It doesn’t happen with another level of reality, like quantum level reality. An example will make it clear. Think of water bursting from a big piece of big rock. Rock exist in a level of reality we live in, not in molecular, or in atomic, on in quantum level. And rock doesn’t behave this way generally, but you are seeing this happening, then this is miracle. And it is quite a different thing then weirdness.

If you want to take the example of supernaturals, then take cases suggestive of Reincarnation or rebirth. This is the best supernatural category out there for which you can have many examples, but you should not be outrightly dismissive.


No, you can’t. Even if what you originally said was true (about the origins of religions), you still won’t be able to prove it with logic. The fact that you think you can suggests to me you don’t really know what it means to work with logic.

Okay. It’s great to see that you concluded about me without giving me a chance to actually begin with my idea or logic behind what I say.

I support you in your attitude of generalizing the whole group because I also do so and think that this actually is absolutely correct. But it becomes very critical when you start generalizing an individual on the basis of behavior of a group. I won’t support you in passing a judgement about an individual on the basis of group because an individual may turn out to be opposite of what it’s group is. For example, by a survey you found out that 70% people of X group have quality A, and 30% don’t have the quality A, then you can say that X group have quality A even if 30% of group don’t have that quality, because more than 50% have that quality and a group is more than summation of its individual units. I will support you in this. But I won’t support you if someone from that group is in front of us and you say on the basis of group X that this individual have quality A. I am against saying anything prejudicial or judgemental towards an individual, though you can generalize the whole group he belongs to but not in front of him. This might be little critical, but I have a question draft pending for new thread in this regard, where I would like clear this point further, if that thread get approved by the admins.

Different people mean it differently when they the word “logic”. When I say “logic” I mean something inherent in nature. It is certainly also about how we present the argument but not exactly about it. It is like how nature present the argument or reveal some truth. Yes, you read it right, nature reveal the truth, and that’s why we discover some truth (that means scientists discover the truth). So there’s logic in nature. So my “logic” is little critical and you won’t get it unless I have posted 10 replies at least regarding God, religion, Satan in my very own threads. And you read those replies carefully. So have patience.

At last, it is not right to put up a challenge in discussion to test the ability of debater on the basis of just that question. Would it be right if I will do so with you?
But because you have already asked, I will answer. So if 6 = 7, then 8 = 9. This statement is true, because if 6 is equal to 6+1, then 8 is equal to 8+1. If I am wrong, and the statement is false then prove it please.

I am very weak in formal logic though, but I think I have good sense of informal logic. But as I said my logic is different. It’s in between philosophy and science.

I am telling you please don’t judge me very soon. Take enough time.

When I said it was impossible; I meant it is an impossible task for anyone.

Like suggesting someone will draw a Euclidean square that is also a circle. You might be excellent at drawing, but that is an impossible task for anyone.