Igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2012, 10:48 AM
RE: Igtheism
(22-10-2012 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 09:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I think it is more practical than Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism. Atheists have a disbelief without making clear what they disbelieve in. Agnostics don't know what it is they are unsure they believe or disbelieve in. Theists usually make stance of what it is they believe in, but not always; for example, a theist may say something like "I believe in a god or gods, but I do not know which, if any, religion is correct about god or gods.

I am very clear about what I disbelieve: gods of any kind.

Bangin I wash my hands of this thread Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:16 PM
RE: Igtheism
(22-10-2012 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 09:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I think it is more practical than Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism. Atheists have a disbelief without making clear what they disbelieve in. Agnostics don't know what it is they are unsure they believe or disbelieve in. Theists usually make stance of what it is they believe in, but not always; for example, a theist may say something like "I believe in a god or gods, but I do not know which, if any, religion is correct about god or gods.

I am very clear about what I disbelieve: gods of any kind.

Well, since I believe that the pharaohs did exist (whatever their supernatural qualities or lack thereof), and that they were a kind of god, and you aren't inclined to clarify what you mean by the word god in such a way as to confirm my suspicion that you aren't counting them as gods, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether they existed.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Igtheism
(22-10-2012 06:16 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 06:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am very clear about what I disbelieve: gods of any kind.

Well, since I believe that the pharaohs did exist (whatever their supernatural qualities or lack thereof), and that they were a kind of god, and you aren't inclined to clarify what you mean by the word god in such a way as to confirm my suspicion that you aren't counting them as gods, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether they existed.

The pharaohs existed but were not gods. How is that even a question?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 12:12 AM
RE: Igtheism
(22-10-2012 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 06:16 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Well, since I believe that the pharaohs did exist (whatever their supernatural qualities or lack thereof), and that they were a kind of god, and you aren't inclined to clarify what you mean by the word god in such a way as to confirm my suspicion that you aren't counting them as gods, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree as to whether they existed.

The pharaohs existed but were not gods. How is that even a question?

They were worshiped as gods by their culture. Now being the undisputed holder of a role of deity in a society's mythos could be considered a KIND of godhood, even absent any supernatural status. I wouldn't describe it as such, and I strongly suspected that you wouldn't, but you were also explicit about not believing in ANY KIND of god. By a literal, straightforward reading of what you wrote, you don't believe the pharaohs existed, however I might suspect otherwise.

So do I take you at your word? Or do I arrogantly decide that what you're saying isn't what you mean, and mentally ascribe to you my own beliefs and meanings despite your own words to the contrary? I really didn't have a good choice there, so I picked the option that at least gave you the opportunity to correct me if I was in error.

Which you have. Thank you. That's one gray area addressed as to what does and doesn't constitute a god, at least in your mind.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
23-10-2012, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2012 03:08 PM by kim.)
RE: Igtheism
(23-10-2012 12:12 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-10-2012 06:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  The pharaohs existed but were not gods. How is that even a question?
They were worshiped as gods by their culture. Now being the undisputed holder of a role of deity in a society's mythos could be considered a KIND of godhood, even absent any supernatural status. I wouldn't describe it as such, and I strongly suspected that you wouldn't, but you were also explicit about not believing in ANY KIND of god. By a literal, straightforward reading of what you wrote, you don't believe the pharaohs existed, however I might suspect otherwise.

YES!
There are those who believe in the power of the mighty Ramones - truly ROCK GODS!!

Yet sadly, many are unacquainted with their awesomeness. It is regrettable that there might be false gods with names of Bieber and such... but these lesser gods will be lost in the mists of time. So fuck 'em. Shy
***
Thank you Reltzik for your Zark addition - this perfectly illustrates an ignostic position! Though I as well identify as ignostic, it seems I have been entirely unable to articulate it as concisely. Bowing BRAVO!! Bowing

I've not been around for a couple of days and it's good to come back and meet a new, similarly bent member. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Igtheism
Quote:They were worshiped as gods by their culture.
Believe it or not, there is a difference from being worshipped as gods, and them being gods.

Just because they hold godlike status, doesn't mean they were godlike themselves.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2012, 09:08 PM
RE: Igtheism
(23-10-2012 02:34 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
Quote:They were worshiped as gods by their culture.
Believe it or not, there is a difference from being worshipped as gods, and them being gods.

Just because they hold godlike status, doesn't mean they were godlike themselves.

Being regarded as godlike by a large number of people pretty much IS the functional threshold for entry into the roster of (hypothetical) gods. If no one had ever worshiped Poseidon, for example, we would not be listing him among the Greek gods. On the flip side of the coin, if some cult leader out in Montana claiming to be a god managed to pick up a whole lot of steam, in two centuries he might have a major religious following and be classified as a god, at least by the cultural anthropologists who study these things.

I'm quite aware that the distinction which you're trying to draw -- that to be a god, rather than to be regarded as a god, the pharaoh would have had to ACTUALLY possess some sort of superhuman power, nature, status, etc, and that there was no evidence (save the likely-biased and highly suspect tales of their people) that they did. And my own feel for the word is largely in agreement with that distinction.

But I don't assume for a moment that some person I'm having a religious conversation with conforms to that particular point, because I've lost track of how many times some freaky, oddball take on religion completely derails my assumptions. Thus, the need to clarify.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Igtheism
From what I understand an igtheist is one who claims that any characteristics of a god cannot be known. I think that's utter crap to be honest. One, we can look at evidence and logic of claims of god(s). I'll do a quick list of all possibilities of characteristics. We have : transcendent, interwoven in nature/universe, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, has feelings, has some kind of body. I thought I would have more, but my mind's drawing a blank right now, but I think some others could fit into the above "claims". The Greek pantheon disappeared when we went to the top of Mt. Olympus and from what I understand most Greeks are Orthodox. So I'm guessing what happened was people asked "Why did they move?" someone answered "Why would they want to move, their gods" and then some guy said "Maybe they were never real?" So, some things, "characteristics", can be known or tested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: Igtheism
[Image: 712955d1337432645-i-hate-omega-part-two-necro.jpg]

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
01-05-2013, 09:44 PM
RE: Igtheism
(12-10-2012 07:46 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  So... basically... an agnostic atheist?

The agnostic position asserts that gods don't exist in the known universe but that gods could exist in another universe and thus, humans cannot know about them. The problem there is that once you use the word god, you've established a testable hypothesis.

The atheist position asserts that gods do not exist in any universe. Some atheists assert that atheism is the rejection of theism and that gods could indeed exist, although they are irrelevant to human life if they do. This to my understanding is agnostic atheism. And like pure agnosticism, it suffers from the application of a description and thus, presents a testable hypothesis.


From what I understand of ignosticism, the assertion is that we simple cannot know. And that's true... if we don't understand logic and material existence. In simple terms... it's ignernt.

In reality, we are indeed ignorant of the existence or non existence of a being that created everything but the problem is that we can't even describe the being as the being that created everything without applying attributes to the unknown.

In the end, any and all positive claims of gods or creators is pure speculation and will remain so until we have some sort of evidence that can be tested and proven.

Until then, I am a strong atheist. I assert that gods cannot and do not exist in this or any other universe and that religion is a by product of child abuse.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: