Neither religion nor atheism appeal to me. Any books about a third position?

John Gray’s Seven Kinds of Atheism.
The thesis is that atheism is older and more varied than contemporary atheism, and that it isn’t necessarily the opposite of religion. It’s written for a popular audience, so no background needed.

Types of Atheism, not Kinds of Atheism.
Excuse me.

>my narrative applies to everything
Where have I seen this before

What about Singularitarianism? A superintelligent AI would, for all intents and purposes, be a God.

youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

Attached: scale of intelligence.jpg (736x233, 40.57K)

Tl;dr on what types of atheism there are? How do you not believe in supernatural in multiple ways?

Mitchell Heisman's suicide note

Here's the link to the text:
legacy.gscdn.nl/archives/images/suicide_note.pdf
(Read pp. 32 - 625)

TL;DR: scribd.com/document/198985140/Mitchell-Heisman-s-suicide-note-overview

Alternatively you can listen to it while gaming: youtu.be/BiMZi5P7WJA

Part 2:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkg6y0uFLHOyAX4BlU6tlnp1qW4l2aFEA

Attached: suicide note condensed.jpg (999x3158, 941.89K)

Where did I say that? Peak retardation.

Agnosticism?

maybe try David Hume's Skepticism or Cartesian Rationalism?

That's what classical philosophy is for. Start with Celsus.

>backpedaling
You have nothing of value to contribute, just fuck off

Just become an egomaniac like me

He already is one

They sang the song that elevated humanity. Hundreds of thousands of inspired voices emerged from the global crisis and spoke powerful testimony about the value of life and the wonder of the universe. Their communications would touch the souls of billions and inspire incredible personal and social transformations. They would give birth to a generation of creatives that would outshine even them.
The name of this event would be known as "The Memetic Singularity."

Ironic - can't back up an accusation. Has contributed nothing whatsoever. Stay mad, faggot.

John Gray is dangerously based, I loved Straw Dogs. For an atheist he sure is unrelenting in his critique of certain utopian or quasi-religious trends in atheistic thought.

secular koranism

Based
Gaddafi did nothing wrong

The "spiritual but not religious" crowd unironically have the right idea. They're just too retarded to see past their new age nonsense which is just rehashing religious thinking

>The "spiritual but not religious" crowd unironically have the right idea.
What's the right idea?

That you can be non religious without falling for the physicalism meme, and that religions are just control structures, not the actual truth. Of course this is an extremely unpopular opinion on Yea Forums because many people here are into fundamentalist christianity and guenonian traditionalism

Don't worry user it's very popular with teenage girls so you have your intellectual companions somewhere.

Case in point.

This thread sucks

Attached: proxy-image (20).jpg (600x796, 182.6K)

Notice how there are never any actual arguments against that point of view, just juvenile gotchas. It makes larpers seethe to no end.

Taoism is a religion, chinks don't make the distinction between the philosophy and the surrounding folklore

A "third position" implies there is a dichotomy between religion and atheism. Atheism itself is a religion so there certainly cannot be a third position.

And what is the problem with “control”? How do you think discipline, focus, mastery are attained? How can a community, a State function without such a control?

Control in a worldly sense. You don't need external institutions in order to have self-discipline. Especially when said institutions don't actually provide you with the truth.

>a third position?
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/myth-as-meth/
"Fantasy is zombie scripture, the place where our ancient assumptions lurch in the semblance of life. The fantasy writer is the voodoo magician, imbuing dead meaning with fictional presence. This resurrection can either facilitate our relation to the actual world, or it can pre-empt it. Science and technology are the problem here. The mastery of deep information environments enables ever greater degrees of shallow information capture. As our zombie natures are better understood, the more effectively our reward systems are tuned, the deeper our descent into this or that variety of fantasy becomes. This is the dystopic image of Akratic society, a civilization ever more divided between deep and shallow information consumers, between those managing the mechanisms, and those captured in some kind of semantic cheat space."

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/scratching-my-duck-quack/
"A ‘book,’ remember, is simply conceptual shorthand for families of related readings. Once you realize that the meaning is all in the audience’s collective head, then you can see the perils of using formal resemblances as your yardstick for grouping what belongs to what.
The crazy remarkable thing about fantasy literature is the way it utilizes the forms of premodern scripture to do something diametrically opposite. Where scripture is the truest of the true literature, fantasy is the falsest of the false. Similar forms, completely different sets of cognitive committments, and drastically different cultural roles. This is why I think fantasy is kind of canary in the cultural coalmine: nowhere do we see the socio-historical rupture of the Enlightenment with greater clarity. Use the kinds of anthropomorphic ontologies you find in preEnlightenment scriptures to structure your fictional settings and you find yourself writing the most fictional fiction."

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/truest-of-the-true-falsest-of-the-false/
"I see epic fantasy as a kind of ‘scripture otherwise.’ A large part of its appeal lies in its iteration of anthropocentric worlds, ontologies that serve our default understanding of the world. All fiction caters to the vagaries of human cognition, but none to such an extent. As such, epic fantasy possesses tremendous social and cultural significance, recording, at almost every turn, the antagonism between modernity and the human soul."

History.

>Atheism itself is a religion

Attached: giphy.gif (350x204, 630.88K)

You do need controlling institutions to impose discipline, order and stability into any community if one wishes this community to attain autonomy. This is especially crucial when it comes to societies. It’s like you wanted to reach self discipline indulging in your lower and immediate impulses.

And? This has nothing to do with spirituality.

>Third position
I dont like my light switch being on or off, is there a third position ?

I made the analogy to make it even clearer. But then tell me what is spirituality according to you.

The connection to what transcends the worldly/material.

How is this connection made? What are the means?

Hey zoomer christcuck. Europe thrived in spite of christianity, not because of it. Christianity today is mostly a religion of niggers and spics and is dying off in Europe — Deus vult

Depends on the individual. I know where you're going with this, and I will not concede that your systems are necessary, no need to waste your time and mine

>a third position?
rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2012/10/darwinism-and-natures-undeadness.html

"Natural forces are neither alive nor dead, in the senses given by the old intuition. Nevertheless, those forces do the work of God, but without being God and indeed without being alive even in the modern scientific respect. These forces, then, are undead, as are their products such as you and me, which is to say that the zombie stands as the best symbol for our intuitions to latch onto as we come to grips with the philosophical implications of Darwinism.
What is it to be undead? The word “undead” means that the undead thing is technically dead but somehow reanimated so that the corpse doesn’t stay dead. Undeadness is like spacetime, in that an undead thing has some attributes of the living and of the nonliving, but isn’t the same as either, given the old, naive way of thinking about them. Just as the concept of spacetime undermines the Newtonian theory of the absolute (observer-independent) dimensions of space and time, the concept of undeadness undermines the theistic myth of the gulf between living spirit and dead matter."

"Indeed, this philosophical implication of Darwinism, that the ordinary notions of life and nonlife no longer make sense and that they need to be replaced by something like the idea of a baffling state of living death, amounts to an ironic, postmodern kind of pantheism. Darwinism not only zombifies but deifies all of nature, since the evolutionary process encompasses the cosmic preconditions of the emergence of life so that the whole universe is required to create life in a mindless, natural fashion. There is no personal God, but the universe as a whole in all of its interconnectedness does yield organisms as byproducts, as though the universe were a creator god. Nature as a whole isn’t personal, but social creatures like us will inevitably anthropomorphize evolutionary patterns. The divinity of nature is no majestic thing, since the cosmos is best understood as an undead monstrosity."

Where am I going? I’m simply asking you questions but it seems you’re too insecure of your own beliefs. I already know they are retarded gnostic puritanism, anyway.

Cool, not a christian, though I think courtly and troubadour traditions were noble.

>You do need controlling institutions to impose discipline
>>Hey zoomer christcuck

Not him, but:

aeon.co/essays/aztec-moral-philosophy-didnt-expect-anyone-to-be-a-saint
"This little episode illustrates two aspects of Aztec virtue ethics that distinguish it from ‘Western’ forms, such as Plato’s or Aristotle’s. The first is that I did not overcome my vice so much as manage it. The second is that I didn’t manage it on my own, but rather did so (almost entirely) with the help of another person.
While Plato and Aristotle were concerned with character-centred virtue ethics, the Aztec approach is perhaps better described as socially-centred virtue ethics. If the Aztecs were right, then ‘Western’ philosophers have been too focused on individuals, too reliant on assessments of character, and too optimistic about the individual’s ability to correct her own vices. Instead, according to the Aztecs, we should look around to our family and friends, as well as our ordinary rituals or routines, if we hope to lead a better, more worthwhile existence."

>gnostic puritanism
lmao what the fuck? Thanks for confirming I shouldn't waste my time on you, disingenuous little faggot

Projection

>not a christian
>still whines about the "gnostic" boogeyman only christards give a fuck about
Sure thing buddy.

That’s the point, the state is Baal mammon, you are a slave of Babylon

Based

Stop getting your light from a bulb, get it from the sun

Christians are gnostic. Do you think Nietzsche was respectful of gnosticism?

Yeah sure the pure individual who can attain alone spiritual awakening without any taint of social, natural operation.

The state can be “Baal mammon” whatever the fuck you mean by this, when it is lax, idealistic, cherishing lower values. The State must serve the higher individual.

Shut the fuck up fanatic. You believing in dumb shit doesn't make it real, believable, meaningful, or reasonable.

Isn’t that just individualism?

Psst kid... wanna try some panentheism? The first one is free.

Acosmism is better

True spirituality can only be attained through radical materialism (not the retarded material idealism, thinking substances, particles are real), but ye are not prepared to it.