igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: igtheism
I've always wanted to know if igtheists lived in igloos.
Lemme know. k.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-05-2014, 04:05 PM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 02:56 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(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.

Stupid cat...







BTW I really enjoyed reading that post.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
05-05-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 04:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I've always wanted to know if igtheists lived in igloos.
Lemme know. k.

No, but their churches are igloos. Yes

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
05-05-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: igtheism
I don't live in an igloo but I'm sure my house ignites! 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
05-05-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: igtheism
lol, well, let's not test that hypothesis. Tongue

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
17-05-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: igtheism
(04-05-2014 11:19 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  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?

I would not recommend labeling yourself as an igtheist. Theological noncognitivist is a synonymous term.

I will tell you why if you care to listen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I would not recommend labeling yourself as an igtheist. Theological noncognitivist is a synonymous term.

I will tell you why if you care to listen.

Indulge me.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 07:17 AM)John Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I would not recommend labeling yourself as an igtheist. Theological noncognitivist is a synonymous term.

I will tell you why if you care to listen.

Indulge me.

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:17 AM)John Wrote:  Indulge me.

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

Still waiting to hear about this academy of which you speak. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-05-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: igtheism
(17-05-2014 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.

This reasoning was based on the "verification principle" espoused by logical positivists in the early twentieth century.

Logical positivists' verifiability principle—that only statements about the world that are empirically verifiable or logically necessary are cognitively meaningful—cast theology, metaphysics, and evaluative judgements, such as ethics and aesthetics, as cognitively meaningless "pseudostatements" that were but emotively meaningful.[1] The verificationist program's fundamental suppositions had varying formulations, which evolved from the 1920s to 1950s into the milder version logical empiricism.[2] Yet all three of verificationism's shared basic suppositions—verifiability criterion, analytic/synthetic gap, and observation/theory gap[3]—were by the 1960s found irreparably untenable, signaling the demise of verificationism and, with it, of the entire movement launched by logical positivism.

So no I would recommend you not label yourself as an igtheist because in doing so, you would be aligning yourself with a self-refuting position that has been abandoned by those in the academy for half a century.

Thumbsup

Still waiting to hear about this academy of which you speak. Drinking Beverage

Do not hold your breath.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: