igtheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 03:27 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I have seen you post a lot about empirical evidence, you quote a lot from many of the resources I use myself but what I don't see from your posts is character and substance. Point me to your evidence, show us some openness.

Well said. Spouting verse and copy pasting is more like plagiarism without individual insight added other than I know what I know.

“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
19-05-2014, 07:53 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?

A definition would be classified as a statement correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:14 AM
RE: igtheism
(19-05-2014 07:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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?

A definition would be classified as a statement correct?

A statement that is not a truth bearer, correct.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes John's post
19-05-2014, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 10:29 AM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: igtheism
(19-05-2014 08:14 AM)John Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 07:53 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  A definition would be classified as a statement correct?

A statement that is not a truth bearer, correct.

So it is a statement.

Ok. I will wait for the response from the gentleman i asked initially. Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 10:31 AM by Monster_Riffs.)
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 04:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 04:15 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  So... Just preaching then. OK, if that's your thing. I'm not angry Jeremy, just disappointed Smile

Do not set your hope in man for man will fail you. Place your hope in God alone.

Facepalm

Jeremy, the reason I previously verbally abused you, is because, all of your previous posting style was that of an accomplished salesman.

Preparation
Introduction
Explanation
Solve
Close
Analyse
Next action

The solve and close sections are where I identity you as a salesman. I too have been a salesman, I was very accomplished in the commercial surveying and property market.

Open questions are used to establish 'objections'. The '7 soldiers' as they're known.

Who
What
Where
Why
When
Which
How

You're fairly good with your use of these questions. You set an open question with a particular link or quote in mind, to isolate and answer the percieved objection.

To transition from solve to close, you appear to have a set repertoire of closed questions. Binary Yes/No answers, these are known as 'leading questions'. Where the problem lies for me, is the deliberate control or misdirection of the communication.The reason, I find communication with you difficult is there are clear tricks lined up with your use of leading questions.

You set up a deliberate yes/no question which blatantly alludes to a punch line or gotcha moment. This is not an honest and open discussion. There are many of us on here with rich and varied life experiences. We have interacted on many levels, with many people, in many environments. With that life experience comes the ability to tell the difference between a German BMW engineer and a used car salesman.

I am happy to speak with you but I am not buying, please cut to the chase concerning any of the points you wish to make to me. I will not be playing the leading questions game.

It is my opinion that God is a purely man made construct Jeremy, so to 'set hope' in it is completely irrelevant to me.

Again, what are you bringing to the table? Please tell me about your conversion. What does it take for an atheist to believe? I am sincere in this question. What is the real and tangible experience you had? What lead you to God?

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
19-05-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: igtheism
(19-05-2014 10:25 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 04:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do not set your hope in man for man will fail you. Place your hope in God alone.

Facepalm

Jeremy, the reason I previously verbally abused you, is because, all of your previous posting style was that of an accomplished salesman.

Preparation
Introduction
Explanation
Solve
Close
Analyse
Next action

The solve and close sections are where I identity you as a salesman. I too have been a salesman, I was very accomplished in the commercial surveying and property market.

Open questions are used to establish 'objections'. The '7 soldiers' as they're known.

Who
What
Where
Why
When
Which
How

You're fairly good with your use of these questions. You set an open question with a particular link or quote in mind, to isolate and answer the percieved objection.

To transition from solve to close, you appear to have a set repertoire of closed questions. Binary Yes/No answers, these are known as 'leading questions'. Where the problem lies for me, is the deliberate control or misdirection of the communication.The reason, I find communication with you difficult is there are clear tricks lined up with your use of leading questions.

You set up a deliberate yes/no question which blatantly alludes to a punch line or gotcha moment. This is not an honest and open discussion. There are many of us on here with rich and varied life experiences. We have interacted on many levels, with many people, in many environments. With that life experience comes the ability to tell the difference between a German BMW engineer and a used car salesman.

I am happy to speak with you but I am not buying, please cut to the chase concerning any of the points you wish to make to me. I will not be playing the leading questions game.

It is my opinion that God is a purely man made construct Jeremy, so to 'set hope' in it is completely irrelevant to me.

Again, what are you bringing to the table? Please tell me about your conversion. What does it take for an atheist to believe? I am sincere in this question. What is the real and tangible experience you had? What lead you to God?

Lol....bro trust me, I take no offense at anything anyone says here. Abuse would be the last word I would use for what you did. You just said some stuff you felt needed saying.

Would you consider a definition to be a statement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 10:46 AM
RE: igtheism
(19-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:25 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Facepalm

Jeremy, the reason I previously verbally abused you, is because, all of your previous posting style was that of an accomplished salesman.

Preparation
Introduction
Explanation
Solve
Close
Analyse
Next action

The solve and close sections are where I identity you as a salesman. I too have been a salesman, I was very accomplished in the commercial surveying and property market.

Open questions are used to establish 'objections'. The '7 soldiers' as they're known.

Who
What
Where
Why
When
Which
How

You're fairly good with your use of these questions. You set an open question with a particular link or quote in mind, to isolate and answer the percieved objection.

To transition from solve to close, you appear to have a set repertoire of closed questions. Binary Yes/No answers, these are known as 'leading questions'. Where the problem lies for me, is the deliberate control or misdirection of the communication.The reason, I find communication with you difficult is there are clear tricks lined up with your use of leading questions.

You set up a deliberate yes/no question which blatantly alludes to a punch line or gotcha moment. This is not an honest and open discussion. There are many of us on here with rich and varied life experiences. We have interacted on many levels, with many people, in many environments. With that life experience comes the ability to tell the difference between a German BMW engineer and a used car salesman.

I am happy to speak with you but I am not buying, please cut to the chase concerning any of the points you wish to make to me. I will not be playing the leading questions game.

It is my opinion that God is a purely man made construct Jeremy, so to 'set hope' in it is completely irrelevant to me.

Again, what are you bringing to the table? Please tell me about your conversion. What does it take for an atheist to believe? I am sincere in this question. What is the real and tangible experience you had? What lead you to God?

Lol....bro trust me, I take no offense at anything anyone says here. Abuse would be the last word I would use for what you did. You just said some stuff you felt needed saying.

Would you consider a definition to be a statement?

That would depend upon the context and what exactly you mean by statement.

This sentence and the one I just typed are statements. Or do you mean making a statement, as in, an emphasised point?

It also depends on what you're defining.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:33 AM
igtheism
(19-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:25 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Facepalm[hide]

Jeremy, the reason I previously verbally abused you, is because, all of your previous posting style was that of an accomplished salesman.

Preparation
Introduction
Explanation
Solve
Close
Analyse
Next action

The solve and close sections are where I identity you as a salesman. I too have been a salesman, I was very accomplished in the commercial surveying and property market.

Open questions are used to establish 'objections'. The '7 soldiers' as they're known.

Who
What
Where
Why
When
Which
How

You're fairly good with your use of these questions. You set an open question with a particular link or quote in mind, to isolate and answer the percieved objection.

To transition from solve to close, you appear to have a set repertoire of closed questions. Binary Yes/No answers, these are known as 'leading questions'. Where the problem lies for me, is the deliberate control or misdirection of the communication.The reason, I find communication with you difficult is there are clear tricks lined up with your use of leading questions.

You set up a deliberate yes/no question which blatantly alludes to a punch line or gotcha moment. This is not an honest and open discussion. There are many of us on here with rich and varied life experiences. We have interacted on many levels, with many people, in many environments. With that life experience comes the ability to tell the difference between a German BMW engineer and a used car salesman.

I am happy to speak with you but I am not buying, please cut to the chase concerning any of the points you wish to make to me. I will not be playing the leading questions game.

It is my opinion that God is a purely man made construct Jeremy, so to 'set hope' in it is completely irrelevant to me.

Again, what are you bringing to the table? Please tell me about your conversion. What does it take for an atheist to believe? I am sincere in this question. What is the real and tangible experience you had? What lead you to God?[/hide]

Lol....bro trust me, I take no offense at anything anyone says here. Abuse would be the last word I would use for what you did. You just said some stuff you felt needed saying.

Would you consider a definition to be a statement?

Bro, is that why you're hiding from the other threads, Bro, and won't come back with some Natty Ice to play GameCube?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
19-05-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: igtheism
(19-05-2014 10:46 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Lol....bro trust me, I take no offense at anything anyone says here. Abuse would be the last word I would use for what you did. You just said some stuff you felt needed saying.

Would you consider a definition to be a statement?

That would depend upon the context and what exactly you mean by statement.

This sentence and the one I just typed are statements. Or do you mean making a statement, as in, an emphasised point?

It also depends on what you're defining.

In his book "Introduction to Logic", Irving Copi states that a definition is a statement of the meaning of a term.

Agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 06:33 PM
RE: igtheism
(18-05-2014 04:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 03:27 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Without the vitriol Jeremy, I was already familiar with what you have posted. As I said, my position is considered. I have been thinking about it for a few months now. It comes from some comments on here ages ago by either Bucky Ball or Chippy, I don't remember and can't recall the thread. I am very familiar with the Stanford Encyclopedia and use it often myself for extended checks and definitions, so I had already seen that.

I disagree with you that a stand alone idea can be dismissed as incorrect because other parts that make the whole are lacking. Igtheism as a stand alone idea seems fine to me, as with most supportable ideas.

Where I am reluctant to label myself Igtheist at the moment, is also in part where we have a point of agreement. I concern myself with feeling it is mentally lazy, or at least counterproductive in regards to open conversation. It strikes me as too early a cut off point.

To be clear with you Jeremy, I think it's a very normal thing for every animal to not want to die. Only with humans we can vocalise it.

I got past this years ago with a simple Occam's Razor test.
1. An undefined diety gave some of us an unexplained desire for eternal life so that we may find him.

Or

2. Our primitive ancestors were so scared of death, with no working knowledge of biology,

Obviously, knowing my position, I opt for option 2. I am comfortable with both facts that I am going to die and I don't want to die. Just because something is comforting for me, doesn't make it true.

I have seen you post a lot about empirical evidence, you quote a lot from many of the resources I use myself but what I don't see from your posts is character and substance. Point me to your evidence, show us some openness. With this copy paiste approach, you're giving me things I have already read. Other people's words! What I am getting at Jeremy is, what makes YOU think how you think? How have you put it all to evidence and what is the evidence? Do you see yourself as different to other Christians that speak to unbelievers, I don't mean this in a rude way, I am asking if you have anything new or unique to bring to the table, or a new perspective on any of it?

Come on, give us something to go on. You're an ex atheist turned Christian. How? Why?

I am an ex atheist turned Christian because I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

This may not solve your problems or answer your questions.

So be it.

I know I have been changed and I know my Redeemer lives.

There must be a work of God in the heart of a man before he comes to the point where he realizes repentance is the only way forward. When this point is reached, a man cries out and God receives Him as the father received the prodigal son.

You have what you label as a "personal relationship" with something that exists nowhere except in your brain, and which your brain references in a series of chemical reactions when you present your brain with the "meme" Jesus Christ. Too bad you made such bad choices that it resulted in you thinking you needed "repentance". No one here cares what you think you have. You are delusional. This is an atheist forum. Go tell your story to someone who cares.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: