In order to reject something you need a clear definition of what it is. An atheistic position contradicts an ignostic one.
-
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!
How is not believing in god different than believing there is no god?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
In order to reject something you need a clear definition of what it is. An atheistic position contradicts an ignostic one.
It's a semantic difference; but when I say, "I don't believe in god," it's only because there isn't one.
No. Such is not the case when the concept is so hazy and yet supposedly so significant to begin with.
It may be simply rejected - and it should be.
Interesting question to consider. Does it? I'm not sure right now.
The former is a passive and open; the latter is active and closed.
catch22
Active Member
What I was trying to convey was not to get hung up on semantics when someone is just trying to declare they don't acknowledge God. Are we really mincing words on this?
Most people don't actually believe God doesn't exist. They simply have no reason to believe, as we do, that He does. Huge difference, yes, but how they express it shouldn't necessarily be argued unless you have a specific reason to think they do believe in something, just not your version or some other variation of the supernatural you might recognize.
The word believe is simply misused here. It'd be easier if people of non-belief simply avoided the word when describing their own position. (for example, I have no reason to believe as you believe, or I have no evidence in God, therefore I do not think he exists)
As of now it sure seems to. But as I said I'm newer to the ignostic ideology and will need more time going over it.
I don't think a label makes the position though. For example, I say "I do not believe in gods". This means I currently don't and tells you nothing about whether I'm willing to change or not. Likewise, I can say " I believe there are no gods". This also does not tell you whether I am willing to change or not.
The "I believe" qualifier implies a degree of open-mindedness, however the implication is stronger in the former than the latter.
By the way, when I say "open-minded", I mean specifically the willingness to change one's stance, regardless of whether it's the former or latter, given enough peer-reviewable evidence.
Interesting. I'll have to think on this.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I would say 100% but my beliefs are based on subjective experience and faith, so I'm not sure whether that is a fair assessment.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Not sure what to make of this.- I don't know whether the ghost of Napoleon is sitting besides me checking my post. I am not sure about J. Caesar invisible spirit, either. Maybe he just inspired me to write his name down, who knows? I have to keep an open mind about this possibility.
- I am agnostic about my tooth fairy protecting me from evil. I do not have enough information about her to have an educated guess about her.
- I am not dead sure that there are not evil spirits condemned by God to drive the planets of the solar system in elliptical orbits. Is maybe Newton wrong? We should leave that open in the interest of intellectual honesty and open-mindedness.
Oh, I feel my position is so honorable! I wonder why they look at me funny at cocktail parties
Ciao
- viole
Why can ignosticism not be the reason for atheism?
The ignostic says, "You claim too much: what is the 'god' thing you speak of?"
The atheist says, "I reject this 'god' thing as you've described it."
leibowde84
Veteran Member
As I said, atheists can certainly be agnostic. They call themselves "weak" atheists, in that they do not believe that God doesn't exist, they simply lack belief in the supernatural. That being said, anyone who actively believes that God cannot exist would have to be classified as an atheist at the very least, as agnostic implies a lack of belief.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Either way, those statements are saying different things.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
OK, how about this, you have $100 million to gamble - of Donald Trumps money, - anything you lose goes back to the Donald,
do you put it all on God? nothing at all on atheism just incase?
As I said to Luis, I'm mucher newer to ignosticism so I'm don't have a full grasp. But, as far as I understand, even saying you don't believe in "god " assumes "god" is a meaningless word. You wouldn't disbelieve in god, you would say that the term is meaningless.
Agnostic doesn't imply a lack of the belief, all it says about belief is that either way requires blind belief.
Both the ignostic and the atheist have supplied 'god' with a meaning in order to use the word in their sentences.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Since my belief is based on subjective experience rather than objective evidence, I would say that I wouldn't gamble on this at all. I would just hit up the craps table instead. In other words, if I have to put my financial well-being on the line, I would have to classify myself as agnostic.