Igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2012, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 03:16 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Igtheism
(20-10-2012 12:31 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(20-10-2012 12:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  And again, no where have I said Igtheism claims the existence of God.

I don't know enough about Dark Matter to have an educated conversation about it's comparison with God. Not sure what definitions have been postulated, what evidence is alleged, the evidence behind proving it exists from a logical standpoint, etc. I don't even know how widely accepted it's existence is. In other words, I am pretty ignorant about Dark Matter, sorry to disappoint.

We are able to detect a small gravitational pull. That is it. We know something is there, but know nothing about it. The evidence is there for its existence, but we cannot define it. The same can apply to an undefined god. You can tell me something deistic exists, but until I have evidence to analyze, I am under the assumption that it does not exist. That is logical, and rational.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 06:41 PM
RE: Igtheism
(20-10-2012 02:18 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If simply ignoring religion was the answer, religion would have died out decades ago.
That is my point.
(20-10-2012 02:18 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  So why are we engaging in this argument?
I am not aware that it is an argument.
(20-10-2012 02:18 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Lastly, you didn't answer my question.
I don't know which question you want answered.

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
21-10-2012, 05:39 AM
RE: Igtheism
(20-10-2012 06:41 PM)kim Wrote:  That is my point.

So what's the point of being an ignostic?

(20-10-2012 06:41 PM)kim Wrote:  I am not aware that it is an argument.

[Image: Facepalm.gif]

(20-10-2012 06:41 PM)kim Wrote:  I don't know which question you want answered.

How is it that an atheist assumes too much about a deity?

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: Igtheism
So dark matter is something that is is theorized to exist, and if it does it has mass that it? God has so many conflicting attributes depending on who your talking to that it could be anything. God can be an invisible man in the sky, or a stone, or a person; it can be a supreme deity, or a figure if little significance; Eternal, mortal, or an idea. Dark matter (at this point, if real) can be almost anything, but it is logically not something that contradicts itself.

Oh, and to answer your question to kim, it assumes to much by simply assuming what god/s is/are.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 09:12 PM
RE: Igtheism
Okay, as a self-identifying ignostic I'm belatedly throwing my hat in the ring here. I skimmed most of the above but won't try to reply to existing subthreads in this post. Warning, the following is LONG.

Ignosticism is a basic admission, regarding some claim or claims, that they are not clear (be it due to some lack of clarity inherent to the claim, or some failure by the claim's proposer to clearly describe the claim, or some failure to understand by the ignostic). This term is especially applied in regard to religious claims, and in particular to claims of the existence of a god or gods. Lacking a clear understanding of what is being claimed, the ignostic will often decline to take any stance, even an agnostic one, regarding the claim.

To put it one way, if asked whether God exists, a theist will say "I believe", an atheist will say "I don't believe", an agnostic will say "I don't know", and an ignostic will say "I don't understand the question". (I've heard this attributed to someone named Drange.) My own expansion on this is that ignosticism is about trying to understand the question before trying to answer it.

Some ignostics regard the concept of God as inherently nonsensical. For myself, I regard the problem as one of vocabulary and definition. I use the word "Zark" as an analogy. I can hardly answer the question "Does Zark exist?" without knowing what the word "Zark" means. Nor can I even take the stance of, "I don't know what a Zark is, so I don't believe it exists." It may well turn out that Zark refers to, say, any form of slapstick involving pies. I DO believe this exists... I just didn't realize someone was inquiring about it. For the same reasons, I can't say "I don't know if it exists", because I know it does.

In other words, I know what I believe, but may not know whether or not a person is referring to something I believe with a word I do not understand.

Now, the word "Zark" isn't entirely analogous to "God", because "Zark" is (I assume?) completely undefined, and "God" has a multiplicity of definitions. But there is still considerable ambiguity. Expanding on the Zark analogy, suppose that I've been informed that Zark is pie slapstick. Okay, I now know what Zark is and I believe it exists. But then someone else comes along and says, no, Zark is actually the god of pie slapstick, rather than the slapstick itself. And a third person comes along and says, no, Zark is not the god of pie slapstick, but rather a god that happens to be worshiped through a pie slapstick ritual. A fourth person interjects, saying that Zark is both a god of pie slapstick AND worshiped through pie slapstick, but ONLY if the pie is dumped down the pants. Anyone who puts the pie anywhere else is not a true Zarkian, and that goes double for those heretical face-pie-ists. And then there's another group of Liberal Zarkians, who embrace a diversity of ritual not only over the pants-versus-face schism, but truly radical practices involving cakes, cobblers, and muffins in place of pies. Multiply it along further variables: custard vs. fruit; graham crust versus butter crust; crumb top vs. whipped cream vs. crust top vs. none...

As the old proverb goes, a man with a clock will always know what time it is, but a man with more than one clock will never know what time it is. I no longer know what "Zark" means, and whether I believe it exists depends on its unknown meaning. I've got a vague, general sense of its meaning, but any which way I try to pin its definition down will have some group of adherents disagreeing with me. I might initially think, "okay, none of these sound plausible, so I'm safe answering no to all of them"... but as I realize the vast number of definitions in play, I might also recognize that I have probably yet to exhaust all of them, and that taking a stance is... premature. Furthermore, some of the more general definitions, such as "Zark is Pie", refer to things I DO believe exist, even as they diverge from my general feel for the meaning of the word and make me suspect I'm not getting the whole story.

"Zark" is now analogous to "God". Whether it is more ridiculous in conception is a topic for another thread.

My response to this ambiguity, when asked whether I believe that God exists, is to try to ferret out what the inquirer means by the word "God". (I might also go after "believe" and "exists" if I'm feeling feisty.) This often takes a while. Once this is reasonably complete, I can confidently identify myself as atheist, theist, agnostic, or whatever. But I can only do so relative to that one person's meaning of "God", because long experience has taught me that another person will often be referring to quite a different concept when using the same word. If another person asked, I would have to go through the same process all over again.

Is any of this significant? Sure is! Let's consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Alice: "Do you believe gods exist, ever existed, or could exist?"
Bob: "Sure! Don't know if they exist now, but I do know they existed in the past."
Alice: "Really? I don't, I'm an atheist."
Bob: "What about the early Roman emperors, or the Egyptian pharaohs? There's strong historical and archeological evidence for them. I don't think they were in any way superhuman, but they were worshipped as gods by their societies and had a place in their pantheons."
Alice: "Sure, they existed, but-"
Bob: "So you AREN'T an atheist?"
Alice: "But they weren't gods! You yourself said weren't superhuman!"
Bob: "But they were considered deities by a religion, and that makes them gods!"

This example highlights the importance of understanding differences in definitions and meanings by showing them coming into conflict. But the more common scenario is that neither will realize the difference is there at all. End the above conversation at line 3 and have the two walk away, thinking they understand what the other person does and doesn't believe. But no actual information has been exchanged. If anything, Alice and Bob are LESS informed than when they started.

Thus, one sensible answer is to avoid answering at all, until I've clarified the question. That's ignosticism.

Or, at least, ignosticism as I practice it. You'll have to ask other ignostics what THEY mean by the word. Weeping

"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
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
21-10-2012, 09:17 PM
RE: Igtheism
(21-10-2012 09:12 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Okay, as a self-identifying ignostic I'm belatedly throwing my hat in the ring here. I skimmed most of the above but won't try to reply to existing subthreads in this post. Warning, the following is LONG.

Ignosticism is a basic admission, regarding some claim or claims, that they are not clear (be it due to some lack of clarity inherent to the claim, or some failure by the claim's proposer to clearly describe the claim, or some failure to understand by the ignostic). This term is especially applied in regard to religious claims, and in particular to claims of the existence of a god or gods. Lacking a clear understanding of what is being claimed, the ignostic will often decline to take any stance, even an agnostic one, regarding the claim.

To put it one way, if asked whether God exists, a theist will say "I believe", an atheist will say "I don't believe", an agnostic will say "I don't know", and an ignostic will say "I don't understand the question". (I've heard this attributed to someone named Drange.) My own expansion on this is that ignosticism is about trying to understand the question before trying to answer it.

Some ignostics regard the concept of God as inherently nonsensical. For myself, I regard the problem as one of vocabulary and definition. I use the word "Zark" as an analogy. I can hardly answer the question "Does Zark exist?" without knowing what the word "Zark" means. Nor can I even take the stance of, "I don't know what a Zark is, so I don't believe it exists." It may well turn out that Zark refers to, say, any form of slapstick involving pies. I DO believe this exists... I just didn't realize someone was inquiring about it. For the same reasons, I can't say "I don't know if it exists", because I know it does.

In other words, I know what I believe, but may not know whether or not a person is referring to something I believe with a word I do not understand.

Now, the word "Zark" isn't entirely analogous to "God", because "Zark" is (I assume?) completely undefined, and "God" has a multiplicity of definitions. But there is still considerable ambiguity. Expanding on the Zark analogy, suppose that I've been informed that Zark is pie slapstick. Okay, I now know what Zark is and I believe it exists. But then someone else comes along and says, no, Zark is actually the god of pie slapstick, rather than the slapstick itself. And a third person comes along and says, no, Zark is not the god of pie slapstick, but rather a god that happens to be worshiped through a pie slapstick ritual. A fourth person interjects, saying that Zark is both a god of pie slapstick AND worshiped through pie slapstick, but ONLY if the pie is dumped down the pants. Anyone who puts the pie anywhere else is not a true Zarkian, and that goes double for those heretical face-pie-ists. And then there's another group of Liberal Zarkians, who embrace a diversity of ritual not only over the pants-versus-face schism, but truly radical practices involving cakes, cobblers, and muffins in place of pies. Multiply it along further variables: custard vs. fruit; graham crust versus butter crust; crumb top vs. whipped cream vs. crust top vs. none...

As the old proverb goes, a man with a clock will always know what time it is, but a man with more than one clock will never know what time it is. I no longer know what "Zark" means, and whether I believe it exists depends on its unknown meaning. I've got a vague, general sense of its meaning, but any which way I try to pin its definition down will have some group of adherents disagreeing with me. I might initially think, "okay, none of these sound plausible, so I'm safe answering no to all of them"... but as I realize the vast number of definitions in play, I might also recognize that I have probably yet to exhaust all of them, and that taking a stance is... premature. Furthermore, some of the more general definitions, such as "Zark is Pie", refer to things I DO believe exist, even as they diverge from my general feel for the meaning of the word and make me suspect I'm not getting the whole story.

"Zark" is now analogous to "God". Whether it is more ridiculous in conception is a topic for another thread.

My response to this ambiguity, when asked whether I believe that God exists, is to try to ferret out what the inquirer means by the word "God". (I might also go after "believe" and "exists" if I'm feeling feisty.) This often takes a while. Once this is reasonably complete, I can confidently identify myself as atheist, theist, agnostic, or whatever. But I can only do so relative to that one person's meaning of "God", because long experience has taught me that another person will often be referring to quite a different concept when using the same word. If another person asked, I would have to go through the same process all over again.

Is any of this significant? Sure is! Let's consider the following hypothetical conversation:

Alice: "Do you believe gods exist, ever existed, or could exist?"
Bob: "Sure! Don't know if they exist now, but I do know they existed in the past."
Alice: "Really? I don't, I'm an atheist."
Bob: "What about the early Roman emperors, or the Egyptian pharaohs? There's strong historical and archeological evidence for them. I don't think they were in any way superhuman, but they were worshipped as gods by their societies and had a place in their pantheons."
Alice: "Sure, they existed, but-"
Bob: "So you AREN'T an atheist?"
Alice: "But they weren't gods! You yourself said weren't superhuman!"
Bob: "But they were considered deities by a religion, and that makes them gods!"

This example highlights the importance of understanding differences in definitions and meanings by showing them coming into conflict. But the more common scenario is that neither will realize the difference is there at all. End the above conversation at line 3 and have the two walk away, thinking they understand what the other person does and doesn't believe. But no actual information has been exchanged. If anything, Alice and Bob are LESS informed than when they started.

Thus, one sensible answer is to avoid answering at all, until I've clarified the question. That's ignosticism.

Or, at least, ignosticism as I practice it. You'll have to ask other ignostics what THEY mean by the word. Weeping

Thanks for adding that! My brain is more at ease. Thumbsup

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: Igtheism
(21-10-2012 09:12 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Thus, one sensible answer is to avoid answering at all, until I've clarified the question. That's ignosticism.

Or, at least, ignosticism as I practice it. You'll have to ask other ignostics what THEY mean by the word. Weeping
Have you ever been in a situation in which the meaning of the usage of the polysemous term "god" by the speaker was not apparent from the context in which it was used in? In other words, what practical value does ignosticism have?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-10-2012, 09:45 PM
RE: Igtheism
(21-10-2012 09:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 09:12 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Thus, one sensible answer is to avoid answering at all, until I've clarified the question. That's ignosticism.

Or, at least, ignosticism as I practice it. You'll have to ask other ignostics what THEY mean by the word. Weeping
Have you ever been in a situation in which the meaning of the usage of the polysemous term "god" by the speaker was not apparent from the context in which it was used in? In other words, what practical value does ignosticism have?

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.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 10:44 PM
RE: Igtheism
(21-10-2012 09:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Have you ever been in a situation in which the meaning of the usage of the polysemous term "god" by the speaker was not apparent from the context in which it was used in? In other words, what practical value does ignosticism have?

Quite a few times. The provided example of whether or not a human Emperor could count as a god is a common one. I think it's come up in debate... seven times, maybe? With perhaps two thinking it counted and five thinking it didn't? I forget the exact count, but that sounds right. (Granted, I'm the one who brings it up.)

Another thing that often comes up is when certain theists (usually Christians) attempt to define God in terms of virtues, with the most common being "God is Love" or "God is Truth". Now I accept that love exists and lean towards the existence of truth (long story). Whether I believe that God (as they conceive of God) exists hinges on whether or not these are actually how a person defines God, and as this is the question I'm most often put to answer, I spend a lot of time on it. Usually digging deeper clarifies that their definition is quite a bit more involved than these simplistic proclamations, which greatly shifts the burden onto them.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
22-10-2012, 06:17 AM
RE: Igtheism
(21-10-2012 09:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 09:20 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Have you ever been in a situation in which the meaning of the usage of the polysemous term "god" by the speaker was not apparent from the context in which it was used in? In other words, what practical value does ignosticism have?

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.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: