I am an ignostic (and, no, this word isn’t etymologically inappropriate). Like the logical positivists, I believe the term lacks cognitive meaningfulness, indicated by the ascribed “incomprehensibility” of the alleged being.
Actually no. If time started at the big bang then nothing COULD precede it. Or maybe the universe came about from virtual particles popping into existence from wave functions collapsing. And M-theory could explain our universe’s existence to.
There is simply an absence. I lack “faith” in purple dragons living inside your liver, too. There are mathematically infinite entities I lack “faith” in, most never dreamt up or philosophically challenged. Atheism is simply the noise people make when surrounded by religious dogma.
People claim to be atheist and have this smarter than thou attitude when their position is just as illogical as someone who believes in God.
Actually, there is only one admitted atheist in this thread that I know of. Most of us don’t even say “I dont know” we are saying “it is not important, I guess I’ll find out when I die.”
The universe was either created by God (theist position) or it was created by natural forces (atheist position) neither position has ever been proven.
First, what would it take for one to prove/disprove God? Second, the overwhelming evidence suggests that, if there is a God, he is not a creator God. I did not say prove, just that we have “seen” within seconds of the Big Bang and have found no evidence for God. There is no evidence that God was directly involved in planetary formation, star formation, or the processees of evolution. What must we find to prove/disprove God?
Second, I am fine with your position if you are also willing to grant the Hindus the same logical stance as you. If you can admit it is just as logical to believe what they do, then w/e, no harm no foul.
To believe the universe was created by natural forces without any proof of such assertion
planetary formation, star formation, nuclear fission/fusion, natural/sexual/environmental selection, plate techtonics, etc, etc, etc… There is plenty of evidence for creation of many things in the universe that were not directly impacted by any creator (at least there is no evidence that a creator had a hand in them).
So, I ask you again; what evidence would suffice to say there is or is not a God?
I am an ignostic (and, no, this word isn’t etymologically inappropriate
Technically, I guess you can do it (television/ neoliberal/ homosexual), but I don’t think it is actively encouraged. And for a theological philosophical position, I think it is in very bad form (and probably with even less precedent, if any precedent at all), and would imply coming from dubious origins. It certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth, my 2 cents.
Atheism is simply the noise people make when surrounded by religious dogma
This is a good way to express it I think
I think ignositicism is the opposite of “very bad form”; for the sake of argument, a properly defined term must be understood by all parties–I don’t even believe theists understand what “god” actually references.
How does gnostic become ‘ignostic’?
what does the thing before ‘gnosis’ (γνῶσις, meaning knowledge) mean? This i- prefix?
And it seems to beg the same question of ‘agnosticism’, it seems to require a γνῶσις in order to say you are it.
It seems they (theism, atheism, ignostic, agnostic) are all a type of γνῶσις that people just have to sort out. A-γνῶσις and ig-γνῶσις both seem to be in bad faith, though, where as theism and atheism own up to their knowledge.
Besides the fact that I do follow a religion, I see all the talk about the existence of God as irrelevant. I see both the possibility of dying and reaching an afterlife, and dying and simply not existing as possible. It’s either it’s the first or the second. I mean if the second possibility is the worst of my worries, and inevitable, why would it matter? If I find my religion fulfilling & worth its time, so why would I abandon it? This is why I can never be an atheist, I wouldn’t find it important enough to self identify as. That’s just me, if you find it fulfilling, enjoy it.
I’m sure my ideas are close to just being apathetic.
To clarify (and maybe I speak for John?): The term “ignostic” is just a queer word, I don’t deny the argument, “God Exists” is a nonsense proposition. However, “gnostic” is not ineherently super natural in meaning or implication, plus there is a Greek/Latin hybrid on a philosophical term, and a theological one to boot. It just seems like a fairly new, informal word to me; that’s all. If it is a very common phrase used in academia, fine, I just don’t like it (as I despise the word “anarchy”)
John what do you think of “alogotheist”?
αλογοθεϊστής - belief in God, but without speaking about it?
This seems to be Kierkegaard’s, who is Christian himself, position: "it is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity is de facto a Judas No. 2."
I can’t say as if I disagree. But on the other hand, I must ask how Kierkegaard knew this to be the case. And how this is the case outside of just himself. Kierkegaard, afterall, is not writing a meditation like Descartes did – which might be more in good faith (to speak to one’s self about the issue of gnosticism or about possible truths before forming them as definitely so). Rather than the bad faith of discourse which says and also discounts truths simultaneously.
I don’t think it is bad to mix Latin and Greek morphemes, necessarily, but it seems strange to use merely a prefix that means a negative, but might also be confused for the Latinate ‘ig’ (to do or act on or lead). Or maybe an Apple product. Ironically, for the purpose of explaining away the unclear terms of theism.
Well it helps to have a fourth option.
-
Yay
-
Nay
-
Maybay
-
What you say?
αλογοθεϊστής - belief in God, but without speaking about it?
I actually wasn’t refereing to Kierkegaard’s position, but that may fit. I think how Kierkegaard “knew” is the point, he wasn’t in the “logic game” (as Wittgenstein would refer to it), he had “resolution to a conclusion” so to speak, he specifically rejected “knowing”.
But the way I meant for the word to be used was “unable to speak of God”, which would be neutral/apahetic to one who is or is not “religous” I suppose. Of course the Greek word “logos” is a bit broad in definition, but for most people who see the word it ought to “ring a bell” to signal “propositional wording”
I don’t think it is bad to mix Latin and Greek morphemes, necessarily, but it seems strange to use merely a prefix that means a negative, but might also be confused for the Latinate ‘ig’ (to do or act on or lead
Speaking only of personal preference: while I don’t prefer it, I am not dogmatic as being against it. I just think that within a philisophical and perhaps more importantly theological context, it is without precedent for the issue at hand. Being that Latin and Greek are perhaps the most important language when discussing philosophical and even more importantly theological concepts, one better have a good reason to form the hybrid, for my 2 cents. Though I do not call this a theologic or mythologic discussion (as it seems the word “God” has been inserted into a logical/ scientific discussion), the word “God” must be acknowledged as theologic and/or mythologic of word origin. For reasons previously stated by you and myself, and simply I think the position would be in need of a better word than “ignostc”, as it is dealing with a theological word (not that trying to assert a non logical word to a logical argument is responsible.)
Can we at the very least agree that ‘creationism’ is not a valid alternative to the theory of evolution?
That is, the theory of creationism as I understand it: all life was fully formed 6,000 or however many years ago.
Creation is a bunk word, just like god. Therefore I agree that creation is not a valid alternative to evolution.
Can we at the very least agree that ‘creationism’ is not a valid alternative to the theory of evolution?
That is, the theory of creationism as I understand it: all life was fully formed 6,000 or however many years ago.
To be crystal clear: absolutly, moreover there is nothing in evolution to help affirm any position of a theist, and there is no valid alternative to evolution at this point, and the theory of evolution is one of the most “rock solid” major theories ever proposed. There is nothing a theist can logically or rationally gain arguing gainst evolution, it is impossible. I was in no way trying to imply favor of a theistic position (ex: my statment “God is a nonsensical word”). And to be even more clear, concern for a “prime mover” is a waste of effort. I just don’t like the term “ignostic”.
And for the record, I just don’t see how you can expect productive dialogue with someone who chooses such a position as creationism, nor do I understand way people are so enthusiastic to prove them wrong.
‘Creation is a bunk word’.
Nuh uh. Here’s a picture of it
Hey, on a semi side note, the god of the Bible is an alien. The History Channel told me so (although it does make more sense than the positions of the fundamentalists like “God’s perfect plan” and “only God knows.”).
I just don’t see how you can expect productive dialogue with someone who chooses such a position as creationism, nor do I understand way people are so enthusiastic to prove them wrong.
I just don’t see how you can expect productive dialogue with someone who chooses such a position as creationism, nor do I understand way people are so enthusiastic to prove them wrong.
I just don’t see how you can expect productive dialogue with someone who chooses such a position as creationism, nor do I understand way people are so enthusiastic to prove them wrong.
ditto and ditto
Would someone explain why the word ‘creation’ in and of itself is a bunk word?
Does it not have a dictionary definition? Does it have no meaning? Are you actually telling me that design in the universe is not a logical possibility or that it’s incomprehensible? Why is it incomprehensible?