chinu
chinu
Than why are you using the word EXPECT ? isn't this sounds like something will change you forcefully after your death ?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you sure you will always remain Atheist ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
chinu
chinu
OK,
As you said >>> I do not know what others THINK about me, generally however most people would likely conclude (at least so far in that they espouse) I am an atheist, though whether or not they think I am a disbeliever or merely a non-believer I do not know.<<<
But they are wrong because you are Ignostic,
But how can you conclude the people who are more Ignostic than you ? or how can you conclude people who are on more higher level of ignosticism than you ?
Why can't you be wrong ?
chinu
chinu
Is there any other TERM too, than practical term ? which term is that, Luis ?
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
More ignostic than me? I am not sure what that actually means.
Were it to mean someone that is more faithful to the concept of identifying what people mean before forming their opinion or engaging in discourse; then I would suggest that such a person is likely to be quite considerably more precise than me and quite possibly have a more readily defensible philosophical and theological position than I do. I would also suggest that it is likely that they take even longer than I do to be able to enter into discourse given their need to explicitly identify conceptual meanings of terms used. Alternatively if you mean more ignostic than me in that you mean someone who is less of a pragmatic ignostic and more of a pure ignostic in that they require definition rather than description, then they are likely people for whom theological noncognitivism is a far more significant part of their theological position and they are also far more likely to be considered more of a pain to talk to with regard to any theological matter due to their enhanced need for precision.
I most certainly can be wrong... but if you are saying can ignosticism be wrong then I would suggest that it might on occasion be overly formal, yet at the core it is absolutely essential.
Could my individual positions be wrong? Most certainly. Am I willing to adjust my precise positions with regard to a number of factors (altered understanding of the concept being evaluated or the natural laws)? Absolutely. Could my approach in general be wrong? Probably not.
Were it to mean someone that is more faithful to the concept of identifying what people mean before forming their opinion or engaging in discourse; then I would suggest that such a person is likely to be quite considerably more precise than me and quite possibly have a more readily defensible philosophical and theological position than I do. I would also suggest that it is likely that they take even longer than I do to be able to enter into discourse given their need to explicitly identify conceptual meanings of terms used. Alternatively if you mean more ignostic than me in that you mean someone who is less of a pragmatic ignostic and more of a pure ignostic in that they require definition rather than description, then they are likely people for whom theological noncognitivism is a far more significant part of their theological position and they are also far more likely to be considered more of a pain to talk to with regard to any theological matter due to their enhanced need for precision.
I most certainly can be wrong... but if you are saying can ignosticism be wrong then I would suggest that it might on occasion be overly formal, yet at the core it is absolutely essential.
If I ask do you believe in _____? Then in order to answer that, you need to understand what I mean by ______.
That is the core of ignosticism, identifying the concept behind the term (because the same term can be used to refer to different things). I do not believe it is possible for this core to be misguided, understanding what people mean is indispensable. If you cannot understand what they mean then you might be curious about what is meant but you cannot possibly determine a position of belief on it. Theological noncognitivism is thus the most appropriate response in such a case.
The second phase of ignosticism is usually to attempt to apply logic; however I being somewhat of an amiable, over generous chap, insert an additional stage here; instead of jumping straight to attempting to apply logic, I attempt to determine if the concept being discussed is held to be be logically characterised, if logic is supposed to be able to apply to the idea. Now most ignostics would likely suggest that this step is unnecessary, that all concepts should be able to withstand logic. But I am sufficiently considerate to entertain the notion of a non-logically bound scope of existence. However given that the scope of existence is not bound by logic, any application of logic to such an existence is unreliable, so therefore any attempt to have logical or reasoned discussion about it is doomed, so I personally am apatheistic towards it. Is this justifiable? Personally I believe so, others may not - I very much doubt any ignostic would disagree with me (though many would not be willing to entertain the existence of such a non logical scope in the first place).
Then, for any logically bound concept, I apply logic, if it is logically inconsistent yet is still asserted to be logically bound, then I must conclude that it is false. For this I am gnostically atheistic and I cannot envisage any person who maintains logic that would fault my decision.
Then we get to the more tricky part. Remember after all that human understanding of the laws of nature (let alone my own understanding) are incomplete - yes 'wrong'. Therefore my position with regards to different concepts will change, yet the metric I use, their match with the laws of nature as we understand them, is I believe defensible in that if the concept it not consistent with natural laws then either the understanding of the natural law is incorrect (entirely possible) or else that the natural law was superceded (that there is a supernatural - which I very much doubt as a position of belief and am thus agnostically atheistic).
Were the concept consistent with the laws of nature as we understand them, the way lies open for an outright statement on my own personal belief or lack thereof.
That is the core of ignosticism, identifying the concept behind the term (because the same term can be used to refer to different things). I do not believe it is possible for this core to be misguided, understanding what people mean is indispensable. If you cannot understand what they mean then you might be curious about what is meant but you cannot possibly determine a position of belief on it. Theological noncognitivism is thus the most appropriate response in such a case.
The second phase of ignosticism is usually to attempt to apply logic; however I being somewhat of an amiable, over generous chap, insert an additional stage here; instead of jumping straight to attempting to apply logic, I attempt to determine if the concept being discussed is held to be be logically characterised, if logic is supposed to be able to apply to the idea. Now most ignostics would likely suggest that this step is unnecessary, that all concepts should be able to withstand logic. But I am sufficiently considerate to entertain the notion of a non-logically bound scope of existence. However given that the scope of existence is not bound by logic, any application of logic to such an existence is unreliable, so therefore any attempt to have logical or reasoned discussion about it is doomed, so I personally am apatheistic towards it. Is this justifiable? Personally I believe so, others may not - I very much doubt any ignostic would disagree with me (though many would not be willing to entertain the existence of such a non logical scope in the first place).
Then, for any logically bound concept, I apply logic, if it is logically inconsistent yet is still asserted to be logically bound, then I must conclude that it is false. For this I am gnostically atheistic and I cannot envisage any person who maintains logic that would fault my decision.
Then we get to the more tricky part. Remember after all that human understanding of the laws of nature (let alone my own understanding) are incomplete - yes 'wrong'. Therefore my position with regards to different concepts will change, yet the metric I use, their match with the laws of nature as we understand them, is I believe defensible in that if the concept it not consistent with natural laws then either the understanding of the natural law is incorrect (entirely possible) or else that the natural law was superceded (that there is a supernatural - which I very much doubt as a position of belief and am thus agnostically atheistic).
Were the concept consistent with the laws of nature as we understand them, the way lies open for an outright statement on my own personal belief or lack thereof.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Feel free to suggest a more appropriate alternative. As I suggested earlier, there is a growing sense of diminishing returns in this exchange.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
As far as this body goes, yes. It is decided.
I've simply gone too far past the primitive god concepts of the human animal and I could not pretend they were true, no matter how hard I tried.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Nope, but so far I see no reason to think I will change my stance.
Oh, and it's "atheist". Not capitalized.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I will remain atheist until proven otherwise. Doesn't look like that will happen in this lifetime though.
I will never worship a god though. I would willingly go to hell for eternity rather than follow an unjust god.
I will never worship a god though. I would willingly go to hell for eternity rather than follow an unjust god.
Draka
Wonder Woman
chinu, why do you keep asking them why they "chose" to be atheists? I don't see how anyone chooses to be atheists anymore than people choose to be theists really. It's a matter of convincing in some direction or another. Some people will admit that they don't know what the future will bring in terms of what will happen in their life to convince them one way or the other and some people are so set in their current beliefs that they can't imagine that anything could convince them otherwise. Either way, asking them why they chose to believe or not believe depending on if they think their mind will change...kind of strange as they never really chose to begin with.
scientific evidence or logical arguments
I don't believe in God because that is what makes the most sense and offers the most emotional solace in my life. I don't wish to tease others because they believe in God. It's only when somebody makes a ridiculous argument or statement that I find myself mocking them.
Are you sure they are not teasers ?
Meh, they can tease if they wish. As long as they're not beating me up, making me pay any fines, or putting me in jail for being a non-theist they can say anything they want.
Not "notorious"?For which the name "Revoltingest" is famous, and will remain alive forever
Yes. :yes:
Yah know.....if this "God" fella ever showed up & proved to us that he was the Big
Kahuna, I'd look at the state of our world, & tell him he's got some 'splaining to do.
Why you choosed, as you are not so sure ?
I'm not unsure about my position itself, i'm unsure about where i'm going to be in the future in this regard. Being sure about where i'm going to be in the future isn't possible because i don't know what will happen with the new knowledge and experiences i'll gain and go through in years to come.
That said, and like i said in the first post, i do think that it's the most likely outcome. Which has to do with why i'm where i'm at in the first place. It normally should require certain things to get me to change my position about this now, and these things are not very likely to happen.
In addition, while changes are possible, not all kinds of changes have a similar chance.
Interesting, enlightening and clearly deliberate use of the capital "A" there....A statement and a question all in one go, well done.
Being sure of the future? If only. However,I can assume and I can therefore assume that I will always remain an atheist. It is not an endlessly continuing search.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not necessarily. I could be swayed by good evidence for god, should any ever be presented to me.
But do I think that's likely to happen ... probably not. But never say never!
But do I think that's likely to happen ... probably not. But never say never!
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes.
Unless someone changes man's history of creating and defining deities, and that wont happen.
For me its knowledge, knowledge is something you cannot undo.
