igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2014, 11:19 AM
igtheism
Wiki definition of igtheism

The more I take my time to look at this, the more comfortable I become with claiming the position of igtheism to define myself.

For a while now, I have taken the position of anti-theist and am comfortable with that from a sociopolitical standpoint. I also have defined myself as agnostic atheist theologically, as I understood it to be intellectually honest. (Russell's Teapot).

However, I no longer feel that agnostic atheist is honest for me anymore.

I am putting this subject up for discussion, so that some of you can help me out with a more substantial definition of igtheism and to see if I am on the correct track here.

For me, the teapot analogy, doesn't cut it anymore because the difference with the teapot vs any proposed god, is the fact that a teapot is clearly defined and understandable. I can be agnostic atheist to the teapot because it is defined, I have full comprehension of what a teapot is, I am certain that whomever proposes to me, that there is a teapot orbiting the earth, has the same understanding as I do, of what a teapot is. Therefore, I can be agnostic atheist about the teapot, I cannot disprove it but don't believe it.

Concerning god/gods is a different matter. First of all, it's easy to prove to me a teapot exists and what it is/does/for. Concerning God, this is impossible in my view. The teapot proposition would be even harder to swallow than it already is, if there was no such thing as a teapot in the first place and therefore impossible to prove to me one exists, let alone it's orbiting the earth.

I feel much more honest, if I take the position against theism as follows.

1. Define exactly what is meant by god/gods/deity.
2. Present evidence. Non anecdotal, falsifiable and testable.
3. Maintain the given definition, without metaphysical goal post shifting.

When I use the term agnostic, I know I am not being honest anymore, merely offering a concession out of politeness.

There is enough evidence now which directly contradicts all of the gods I am aware of. Even the deist god idea begs the question. I think the claims of any god are no more valid than any creature I invent in my head from a fictional planet, which I also imagined. Just because someone else imagined a god, surely I don't have to be pulled in to the shell game of agnosticism, no matter which lofty intellectual disguise the challenge to my non belief wears?

The religious surely must agree upon an accurate definition of what they are proposing first before even looking to fulfil the burden of proof?

As you good people can probably tell, I'm stumbling a little to explain myself here. This shift in attitude for me, is fairly recent. It has come about because of a few threads on here over the last couple of weeks, challenging theists to define god and a couple of you have mentioned igtheism here and there. Is my understanding of igtheism correct? I demand a definition of god, I expect it to be falsifiable and testable, I reject the proposition 100% until that criteria is met before I even get to the burden of proof issue, which is 100% on the claimant.

Am I igtheist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
04-05-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: igtheism
You may want to check out this thread: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Igtheism

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
04-05-2014, 12:25 PM
RE: igtheism
I too find myself in the exact same place you are. I am new to the board and I was struggling to express the concept that saying I lack belief in god is something of an oversimplification. A more accurate description would be that the definition of god can't even be comprehended sufficiently to say if one believes it or not. A forum member was kind enough to point me in the direction of igtheism and from there my experience has basically mirrored yours.

Welcome to the club. Clap
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
04-05-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 11:29 AM)Vosur Wrote:  You may want to check out this thread: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Igtheism

That thread helped. Thank you.

I think there may be some confusion from either my own point of view, or some other people's regarding undefined God though.

Some say, individual 1 can define God. If that is the case, great, now individual 1 must provide evidence.

To me though, the Christian god for example is still an undefined idea even if individual 1 defines it. I can ask Christians 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to specifically define the Christian god. Whether they, don't, do, over, under, well or badly define their God, 1 through 10 will all answer differently. Therefore, even specific (in this example the Christian God) is undefined.

A question that has arisen from that thread for me is, does ignosticism negate the need for or preceed atheism? ... I need to do some proper reading on this I think Smile

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
04-05-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 12:25 PM)djhall Wrote:  I too find myself in the exact same place you are. I am new to the board and I was struggling to express the concept that saying I lack belief in god is something of an oversimplification. A more accurate description would be that the definition of god can't even be comprehended sufficiently to say if one believes it or not. A forum member was kind enough to point me in the direction of igtheism and from there my experience has basically mirrored yours.

Welcome to the club. Clap

I've encountered the term before but not given it much thought, I was comfortable with agnostic atheist for many years because at the time I did think it was honest. ... I have given it more thought lately because I have felt like a liar when I have claimed agnosticism for the sake of intellectual honesty, lately it has just felt like a platitude or concession. I just feel the need to check my understanding of the term! Smile

I thank you for the club membership! Thumbsup
I propose we have secret handshakes and I task you with organising some wild parties! Big Grin

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: igtheism
Not sure if you mean "honest" or "accurate." I think you might be saying that, after further reading on the matter, "Agnostic" may no longer be an "accurate" description.
It doesn't sound like it's an issue of honesty or dishonesty in this particular case. Just accuracy.

By the way, I'll need to look at this farther; this seems very much like it could be me as well.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
04-05-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)Charis Wrote:  Not sure if you mean "honest" or "accurate." I think you might be saying that, after further reading on the matter, "Agnostic" may no longer be an "accurate" description.
It doesn't sound like it's an issue of honesty or dishonesty in this particular case. Just accuracy.

By the way, I'll need to look at this farther; this seems very much like it could be me as well.

Fair point. Yes it's an issue of accuracy Thumbsup

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2014 02:34 PM by kim.)
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 12:37 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  A question that has arisen from that thread for me is, does ignosticism negate the need for or preceed atheism? ...

This is the ponderable question. Shy

Personally, I feel my ignosticism makes the theological argument fairly irrelevant... at least irrelevant to me. I see "faith" as something that others may or may not have - while I know with fair certainty, I never had it. Agnosticism / atheism were always just a default - they explained a lot, just not completely.

Some theists try to insist that faith is love; I see this as a reinforcement of fearful confusion to conflate the two. Faith and love are things not mutually exclusive.

For me, faith as a theological thing, just seems to be some condition others have, like obesity or anorexia. It can be either very deep or just superficially imbedded. Some things about it are controllable to a certain extent but it's difficult to ascertain what it is that perpetuates the "control" issue, why it's there, etc.,. It's more than likely, not just one thing, and certainly highly dependent on enablement... hence the constant struggle of so many.

I have great compassion for those caught up in this struggle but empathy can be fatiguing when I have only minimally comparable experience. Fortunately, I've also adopted a sporadically apatheistic view so, now and then, I can just walk away from an annoying theist or atheist. I've often found myself at the point where it just makes so little sense to me that, I don't give a shit about any of it.

That's about as complete as it gets. 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
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
04-05-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: igtheism
For me, I'd tend to use the term rather adjectively. Atheistic is my overall position on the idea of the existence of a deity or "supreme force," etc. Igtheistic gets a little more specific to the person and asks,"besides, what exactly do you mean by "god" anyway?"

But that's just me.

If I was to include it, I'd have it preceed "Atheist." But I'd also preceed "Atheist" by "Agnostic" or perhaps several other relevant adjectives.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
04-05-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 12:37 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Some say, individual 1 can define God. If that is the case, great, now individual 1 must provide evidence.

To me though, the Christian god for example is still an undefined idea even if individual 1 defines it. I can ask Christians 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to specifically define the Christian god. Whether they, don't, do, over, under, well or badly define their God, 1 through 10 will all answer differently. Therefore, even specific (in this example the Christian God) is undefined.

Hmm...

My perspective is a little different. To my thought process, one of the commonly accepted defining characteristics of "god" is that god is either supernatural or at least not limited to the constraints of the known universe. Human understanding and comprehension, at least at this point in time, is rather exclusively limited to the natural and the constraints of the universe.

I recently e-filed a tax return with a cat in the room. I have no idea what the cat would speculate about what I was doing. Whatever it is, I am absolutely certain the cat doesn't believe I was using a software program to calculate my total income tax liability to the federal government and arranging the electronic transfer of a fiat currency to the Internal Revenue Service to satisfy that obligation. The problem isn't that any of these things aren't real, or are only theoretical, or can't be proven or falsified, or any of those big philosophical objections. The simple problem is the cat has an insufficient foundation of knowledge with which to comprehend the concepts of software, tax, electronic, currency, or IRS. As a result, the question "does my cat believe in the existence of e-filing taxes" is rather silly.

Human beings currently lack a sufficient foundation of knowledge to meaningfully understand the nature of existing without somewhere to exist (the universe), or existing before the universe and causing the creation of the universe when the very concepts of "before" and "causing" are dependent upon the concept of time, and time exists only as a property of the universe. The very question, "did god exist before the universe?" makes no sense at the current state of human knowledge.... without the existence of the universe, before and after don't exist either!

Supernatural isn't much better. To say we know what is supernatural requires us to fully know what is natural, so we can conclusively identify what is not natural. Human knowledge about the natural is still woefully small. Not only do we not understand supernatural, we don't fully even understand natural!

Therefore, I view humans speculating about the nature and existence of god in the same way I view cats speculating about the existence of e-filing taxes and whether or not doing so is supernatural. Which is to say, it is mostly wildly unfounded speculation and nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: