Igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2012, 09:54 PM
RE: Igtheism
(13-10-2012 09:48 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(13-10-2012 03:23 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  In which case they'd be a deist or pantheist. Theists make specific claims about a deity. What its name is, what its attributes are, what its gender is, how or when it contacted humans, are all part of theism.

Pantheist is a theist, just a subset. Theism, in it's broadest sense is just someone that claims there is at least a god. Now you could say that the term isn't specific enough for your tastes, but it is still correct.

Logica Humano Wrote:Another reason ignosticism is a stupid stance is because atheism makes a negative claim and theism makes a positive claim.
Ignosticism makes more sense than than Atheism to me. Atheism is making a negative claim, but against and undefined thing. Igtheism says you need to define what the god concept means before we can make any claims, positive, negative or neutral (i.e. I don't have a clue). For practical reasons Atheism is much easier to use (I don't believe in any god that I have ever heard of) but it doesn't really make sense for the folks that claim nature is god, because I have yet to find an Atheist that really believed that nature doesn't exist, only argued that it can't be proven to exist (a la Descartes). I will continue to use the label Atheism in casual conversation but if the conversation wasn't as casual I would use the term Igtheism to distinguish beliefs.
AtotheTheist Wrote:The point I was trying to make is that when they bring up a God concept, the person who brings it up defines it very well. Such as if friend of yours is a Christian, isn't God well defined if he is a Christian? Or maybe he is a Norse believer, than the concept is also well defined, same with Zues, Adonis, Coyote. These are well defined concepts, and they have a recurring theme to them as well.

By welldefined, I mean to the believer, well defined enough to reject them based on the information that we can gather.

I don't disagree with that, but the problem is when you talk about god in a general sense, to mean the concept of God. This is why true Atheism doesn't always work as a blanket term to reject all gods. If the only requirement for being an Atheist was to reject a god than everyone would be Atheists, but that is not the definition of Atheism. Atheism presumes that all Gods are false, without having a concrete idea of what attributes something must have to be considered a god. See the nature comment above.

First of all, atheism is the DISBELIEF in gods. They do not say gods are false( though atheists tend to do so) they just don't hold a belief in a deity. There is a difference from "I don't believe in a god" to "I think all gods are false."

If GOD X exists, but hasn't made himself known, then atheism is quite logical seeing as there is no reason to believe in a god.

[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
13-10-2012, 10:32 PM
RE: Igtheism
(13-10-2012 09:54 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(13-10-2012 09:48 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Pantheist is a theist, just a subset. Theism, in it's broadest sense is just someone that claims there is at least a god. Now you could say that the term isn't specific enough for your tastes, but it is still correct.

Ignosticism makes more sense than than Atheism to me. Atheism is making a negative claim, but against and undefined thing. Igtheism says you need to define what the god concept means before we can make any claims, positive, negative or neutral (i.e. I don't have a clue). For practical reasons Atheism is much easier to use (I don't believe in any god that I have ever heard of) but it doesn't really make sense for the folks that claim nature is god, because I have yet to find an Atheist that really believed that nature doesn't exist, only argued that it can't be proven to exist (a la Descartes). I will continue to use the label Atheism in casual conversation but if the conversation wasn't as casual I would use the term Igtheism to distinguish beliefs.

I don't disagree with that, but the problem is when you talk about god in a general sense, to mean the concept of God. This is why true Atheism doesn't always work as a blanket term to reject all gods. If the only requirement for being an Atheist was to reject a god than everyone would be Atheists, but that is not the definition of Atheism. Atheism presumes that all Gods are false, without having a concrete idea of what attributes something must have to be considered a god. See the nature comment above.

First of all, atheism is the DISBELIEF in gods. They do not say gods are false( though atheists tend to do so) they just don't hold a belief in a deity. There is a difference from "I don't believe in a god" to "I think all gods are false."

If GOD X exists, but hasn't made himself known, then atheism is quite logical seeing as there is no reason to believe in a god.

You are right, I misspoke (mistyped technically), atheism is a disbelief, but that still does not resolve the problem that I spoke of. I actually made no mention of an unknown god that hasn't revealed itself.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2012, 10:38 PM
RE: Igtheism
(13-10-2012 10:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(13-10-2012 09:54 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  First of all, atheism is the DISBELIEF in gods. They do not say gods are false( though atheists tend to do so) they just don't hold a belief in a deity. There is a difference from "I don't believe in a god" to "I think all gods are false."

If GOD X exists, but hasn't made himself known, then atheism is quite logical seeing as there is no reason to believe in a god.

You are right, I misspoke (mistyped technically), atheism is a disbelief, but that still does not resolve the problem that I spoke of. I actually made no mention of an unknown god that hasn't revealed itself.

I was only using the scenario to describe why atheism could be considered a logical position, even if a god does exist. Now, as to when people talk about a god/God we can safely assume that their concept is well-defined. So, the only way a god concept could be undefined is if the people are unaware of its existence which is why if that is the case, atheism is still the logical position.

When people usually talk about a god, they have defined the word and thus you can successfully argue and debate that concept.

I don't think you will meet a believer in a god that doesn't attribute something to that god.

[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
14-10-2012, 03:08 AM
RE: Igtheism
(13-10-2012 09:48 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Ignosticism makes more sense than than Atheism to me. Atheism is making a negative claim, but against and undefined thing. Igtheism says you need to define what the god concept means before we can make any claims, positive, negative or neutral (i.e. I don't have a clue). For practical reasons Atheism is much easier to use (I don't believe in any god that I have ever heard of) but it doesn't really make sense for the folks that claim nature is god, because I have yet to find an Atheist that really believed that nature doesn't exist, only argued that it can't be proven to exist (a la Descartes). I will continue to use the label Atheism in casual conversation but if the conversation wasn't as casual I would use the term Igtheism to distinguish beliefs.

The issue with people believing something that exists is God, is that they are forced to attribute supernatural characteristics to it. Again, they are making a positive claim about the qualities and attributes of said object or concept that are neither provable nor testable. Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position.

Now, if a person is to name their God "intelligent falling" and bestow the same exact modern definition of gravity, then why treat it like a god?

As I said before, Ignosticism is a stupid position in my opinion.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2012, 07:32 PM
RE: Igtheism
(14-10-2012 03:08 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(13-10-2012 09:48 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Ignosticism makes more sense than than Atheism to me. Atheism is making a negative claim, but against and undefined thing. Igtheism says you need to define what the god concept means before we can make any claims, positive, negative or neutral (i.e. I don't have a clue). For practical reasons Atheism is much easier to use (I don't believe in any god that I have ever heard of) but it doesn't really make sense for the folks that claim nature is god, because I have yet to find an Atheist that really believed that nature doesn't exist, only argued that it can't be proven to exist (a la Descartes). I will continue to use the label Atheism in casual conversation but if the conversation wasn't as casual I would use the term Igtheism to distinguish beliefs.

The issue with people believing something that exists is God, is that they are forced to attribute supernatural characteristics to it. Again, they are making a positive claim about the qualities and attributes of said object or concept that are neither provable nor testable. Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position.

Now, if a person is to name their God "intelligent falling" and bestow the same exact modern definition of gravity, then why treat it like a god?

As I said before, Ignosticism is a stupid position in my opinion.

I can't answer the why, but it happens. Anytime there are things that we humans cannot understand completely some folks call that god, or one of many gods. I don't think your issue with Igtheism/Ignosticism is that the position it dumb, the issue you have is that people attribute such a vast array of ideas to being god, which is precisely why it exists. Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2012, 02:09 PM
RE: Igtheism
(14-10-2012 07:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-10-2012 03:08 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The issue with people believing something that exists is God, is that they are forced to attribute supernatural characteristics to it. Again, they are making a positive claim about the qualities and attributes of said object or concept that are neither provable nor testable. Agnostic Atheism is the most logical position.

Now, if a person is to name their God "intelligent falling" and bestow the same exact modern definition of gravity, then why treat it like a god?

As I said before, Ignosticism is a stupid position in my opinion.

I can't answer the why, but it happens. Anytime there are things that we humans cannot understand completely some folks call that god, or one of many gods. I don't think your issue with Igtheism/Ignosticism is that the position it dumb, the issue you have is that people attribute such a vast array of ideas to being god, which is precisely why it exists. Thumbsup

No, my problem is that you are assuming that either side are required to posses adequate information about said topic. It is stupid, considering atheism does need any information at all for its points to stand. It is a negative claim.

As to your description of what can constitute a deity on a personal level, as I said, it requires a certain level of the supernatural in order to be called a "god". Otherwise, it'd be the same as deeming gravity the name "intelligent falling".

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2012, 02:45 PM
RE: Igtheism
(15-10-2012 02:09 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  No, my problem is that you are assuming that either side are required to posses adequate information about said topic. It is stupid, considering atheism does need any information at all for its points to stand. It is a negative claim.

You do need information. That isn't an assumption, it's logic.

Person A "I believe in Mutlagigdoxal"
Person B "I don't really know what that is but it doesn't exist"

See, illogical. You cannot have a disbelief in something before knowing that the something is. You can say I don't believe in a Christian God, or Norse Gods, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster God, and that would be logical. May his noodley goodness reign down upon you like the sauce that drippith from the heaven above.

(15-10-2012 02:09 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  As to your description of what can constitute a deity on a personal level, as I said, it requires a certain level of the supernatural in order to be called a "god". Otherwise, it'd be the same as deeming gravity the name "intelligent falling".

Nope, it doesn't require it. I've already addressed this, but let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right. Okay then, how many supernatural things can you think of off the top of your head that are not considered gods. Unicorns, Leprechauns, Vampires yadda, yadda, yadda. So what other requirements are there to be a god other than supernatural? It is not agreed on. Therefore we do not have a clear definition of what it means to be a god.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2012, 03:32 PM
RE: Igtheism
(15-10-2012 02:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Person A "I believe in Mutlagigdoxal"
Person B "I don't really know what that is but it doesn't exist"

See, illogical. You cannot have a disbelief in something before knowing that the something is. You can say I don't believe in a Christian God, or Norse Gods, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster God, and that would be logical. May his noodley goodness reign down upon you like the sauce that drippith from the heaven above.

Your assessment of atheism is incorrect.

Person A - I believe in Vishnu.
Person B - Until you define it and provide evidence for its existence, I will not believe that Vishnu exists.

Negative claim, Dark Light. Negative.


(15-10-2012 02:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Nope, it doesn't require it. I've already addressed this, but let's say, for the sake of argument that you are right. Okay then, how many supernatural things can you think of off the top of your head that are not considered gods. Unicorns, Leprechauns, Vampires yadda, yadda, yadda. So what other requirements are there to be a god other than supernatural? It is not agreed on. Therefore we do not have a clear definition of what it means to be a god.

It does require it. Unicorns, Leprechauns, Vampires, etc. are all supernatural as well, yes. What's your point? I didn't say all supernatural things are gods, I said all gods are supernatural, or exhibit supernatural characteristics.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: Igtheism
(13-10-2012 05:23 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I think the word is cool. I think the belief is stupid.

Belief? What belief? Ignostics don't need no stinkin' belief.

Even if there was anything resembling an all omnipotent, omniscient force, which for some reason would need me to believe in it in order for it to exist... it would be irrelevant to my actual existence.

AND, if it wasn't irrelevant... how would anyone but me know, anyway? Probably irrelevant to everyone else, as well... but I only know... me. 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
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
15-10-2012, 03:44 PM
RE: Igtheism
(15-10-2012 03:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Your assessment of atheism is incorrect.

Person A - I believe in Vishnu.
Person B - Until you define it and provide evidence for its existence, I will not believe that Vishnu exists.

Negative claim, Dark Light. Negative.

Your assessment is incorrect. Vishnu is a defined thing. God is not. You can say I don't believe in Vishnu, but that is not what atheism is. Atheism is a disbelief in god, which is not well defined. You have proven my point, so thank you.

Logica Humano Wrote:It does require it. Unicorns, Leprechauns, Vampires, etc. are all supernatural as well, yes. What's your point? I didn't say all supernatural things are gods, I said all gods are supernatural, or exhibit supernatural characteristics.

Notice how you only responded to part of that? Respond to all of it and then you will see my point.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: