Ignosticism

[LuisDantas]

Apologies, I didn't see this earlier. #2 contradicts #1.

If the concept is pre-determined to be vague or worse, then all definitions will be denied by default, always and forever.

It's simple to test.

god = creator. In spite of this clear equivilance, the ignostic cannot tolerate it and still conform to the definition of their theological position. They must either abandon their position, change the meaning of ignostic, or put there fingers in their ears, squeeze closed their eyes, and deny knowing the english language.



The reaction to god = creator will either be petulant or result in watering down the concept being vague or worse to begin what you wrote: "the concept [is] vague or worse to begin with."

You are really not understanding the basics of it.

 

[dybmh]

I think this is one of those situations where a person who holds the position will not want to clarify it

Exhibit A:

Please bring a defintion that defines ignosticism.

Are you serious?

It is just a matter of intellectual honesty and awareness of how the words are actually used in the real world.

Which is to say, as barely meaning anything.

 

[dybmh]

I think this is one of those situations where a person who holds the position will not want to clarify it

Exhibit B:

You are really not understanding the basics of it.

 

[VoidCat]

You are really not understanding the basics of it.

if @dybmh don't understand it then please do me a favor and explain what he got wrong. Not for his benefit. But for mine. I'm trying to learn here your position before looking for more information on this topic.

 

[dybmh]

Exhibit C:

deny knowing the english language.

Are you serious?

It is just a matter of intellectual honesty and awareness of how the words are actually used in the real world.

Which is to say, as barely meaning anything.

^^ denying knowing the english language.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I googled the word plentiformity. Google don't know it

Thanks for sharing.

 

[VoidCat]

Thanks for sharing.

ok I was hoping you'd define the word so I'll know what it means in the future...I don't have a paper dictionary cuz I just use google to define words I don't know otherwise I'd use one... and clearly the word hasn't come up in any of the books I read and I know I can be ignorant on topics. Keep in mind I'm a lot younger then you decades younger being only 21, thus probably less well read and am still learning religious concepts so could you please help me out here?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, nor do I believe he thought such a definition existed that would prove both coherent and useful.

Doesn't this strike you as an impossible position to rationally assert?

"I don't know the qualities which would produce a coherent definition. Therefore no coherent defintion exists."

I believe I wrote:

... nor do I believe he thought such a definition existed that would prove both coherent and useful. [emphasis added]​

​

"'God' means 'puce pomegranate'" is a perfectly coherent definition.

​

 

[dybmh]

I believe I wrote:

... nor do I believe he thought such a definition existed that would prove both coherent and useful. [emphasis added]​

​

"'God' means 'puce pomegranate'" is a perfectly coherent definition.

​

I know. But if the defintion is conditional on both coherent and useful, then the qualities of a "coherent god concept" must be known else the condition will never be met.

Moving on. If God is defined as a pomegranate, that is also useful. It's a silly definition, so the uses / usefulness will be equally silly if imagined to be applied in the real world. Or, it could be applied in terms of "lacking-usefulness" which is also useful. Hopefully I don't need to detail this mild paradox?

The point is, there are plenty of ways to describe a god which are both coherent and useful. Therefore ignosticsm is a false position.

 

[LuisDantas]

if @dybmh don't understand it then please do me a favor and explain what he got wrong. Not for his benefit. But for mine. I'm trying to learn here your position before looking for more information on this topic.

It really comes down to either accepting that ignosticism is necessary because there is a huge variety of mutually exclusive conceptions of deities roaming free without proper acknowledgement or pretending otherwise.

I'm in the first camp.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know. But if the defintion is conditional on both coherent and useful, then the qualities of a "coherent god concept" must be known else the condition will never be met.

Moving on. If God is defined as a pomegranate, that is also useful. It's a silly definition, so the uses / usefulness will be equally silly if imagined to be applied in the real world. Or, it could be applied in terms of "lacking-usefulness" which is also useful. Hopefully I don't need to detail this mild paradox?

The point is, there are plenty of ways to describe a god which are both coherent and useful. Therefore ignosticsm is a false position.

Rather, ignotiscism can be made unnecessary ONCE the proper clarifications are offered.

Which is rarely the case, odd as that is.

 

[VoidCat]

It really comes down to either accepting that ignosticism is necessary because there is a huge variety of mutually exclusive conceptions of deities roaming free without proper acknowledgement or pretending otherwise.

I'm in the first camp.

ah so @dybmh is wrong on this(bolded part mine)?

I doubt that you will get a reply.

Briefly, my conclusion is based on the assertion by the ignostic "there are not any coherent defintions possible." It's not saying "there are so many different defintions, I cannot possibly choose." It's saying "each and every definition no matter what it is, no matter who says it, no matter what words are chosen are incoherent."

And, it's important to note that the usage of the label "incoherent" is an insult intended to describe mental insanity. It's very similar in meaning to 'word-salad' which comes from the diagnosis of schizophrenia.

it's more that there are so many definitions you can't form one single definition for you to believe in a deity or not? So in a conversation you could use someone else's definition to have a conversation and believe what they are saying is coherent but for your own personal definition of deity you don't feel you could make one because different definitions contradict? Or is it all definitions by themselves are contradictory to you?

 

[VoidCat]

Rather, ignotiscism can be made unnecessary ONCE the proper clarifications are offered.

Which is rarely the case, odd as that is.

and what sort of proper clarifications would be needed?

 

[George-ananda]

I have some attraction to Ignosticism although the word doesn't get past my spellchecker even.

Traditionally the debate has been the Christian God versus Atheism. But today, with the merging in of Eastern concepts and thinking the debate is not clear-cut. I follow Advaita Vedanta nondual (God and creation are not-two) Hinduism. Isn't that different than the Christian God. Can I choose 'none of the above' in the traditional debate?

I really think the more central question has become a materialist view of what life is versus the view that life is more than physical.

 

[VoidCat]

ok I was hoping you'd define the word so I'll know what it means in the future...I don't have a paper dictionary cuz I just use google to define words I don't know otherwise I'd use one... and clearly the word hasn't come up in any of the books I read and I know I can be ignorant on topics. Keep in mind I'm a lot younger then you decades younger being only 21, thus probably less well read and am still learning religious concepts so could you please help me out here?

@Jayhawker Soule did you mean pluriformity and not plentiformity? That is a word that is religious in nature. It seems to be a catholic term just glancing at google and not looking deeply yet. I'm not too knowledgable on catholics.

Dictionary : PLURIFORMITY

PLURIFORMITY Diversity in the Catholic Church's practice, reflected in the different rites, adapting the one, unchangeable faith to the different cultural traditions of the people.

www.catholicculture.org

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How are [ignosticism and agnosticism] different?

He: "My god defies description. It transcends human understanding."

Me: "Then I don't know what you are claiming exists, and lacking description, I would have no way of identifying it if I encountered it. Color me ignostic."

He: "Do you believe that gods exist?"

Me: "No. That makes mean atheist."

He: "Do you claim that they don't exist?"

Me: "No. I'm agnostic about gods. I'm, an agnostic atheist"

He: "Do any other words apply to your worldview regarding gods?"

Me: "Yes. I'm also an apatheist regarding noninterventionist gods like the deist god. I don't care if they exist or not, since they don't impact reality or experience even if they do."

He: "Are you done yet?"

Me: "Add antitheist and humanist for a fuller picture of my agnostic, ignostic, apathetic atheism. I'm a secularist and object to and argue against religion in government."

The problem here is identifying a "claim" from a statement of belief.

Same thing.

There are very few theists that actually claim that their concept of God is a truth that everyone else must accept as such. Most simply state it to be a belief that they choose to accept as true, on faith, knowing that not everyone else does or will. But this never satisfies the atheist

Most atheists don't care what theists believe about gods. Why should they? I don't see anybody trying to convert theists. I never even think about or discuss the matter except when a theists is proselytizing, and even then I'm not trying to change his mind, just to tell him why I don't think that way. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn’t violently insane, sacrificing animals, and he keeps the noise down.

how many people here or anywhere else are really all that clear about ANYTHING?

Irrelevant. Even if only one in ten can articulate an idea clearly enough to be understood, the other nine can be disregarded if they can't make their claim comprehensible analogous to ingosticism for their insufficiently described gods.

that's not critical though at all. That's just arrogance and bias.

It is critical thought. That you don't recognize that only speaks to your knowledge, not mine. And yes, critical thought is a bias. It's a bias against unjustified belief. And that's a rational bias, one that has transformed the world and elevated the human condition. Calling that belief is arrogant is ignorance of what arrogance is.

how many times has it been clearly explained to you that the imaginary lack of evidence that you invented for yourself by mislabeling the actual eviedence is not evidence that gods don't exist?

THIS is arrogance. You've never taught me anything. You don't make or refute arguments and you don't offer evidence, just insubstantial musings that have no persuasive or educational value. Evidence sufficient to justify a god belief doesn't exist. If you think it does, it's you who is imagining things. And I have never made the mistake you identify there, which is an ignorantium fallacy.

And yet how many times have you just continued to blunder onward insisting that there is no evidence, complaining that no one can explain God to you in a way that you will accept, when clearly you have no intention of accepting ANY god-concept, and then dishonestly claiming that you're not really an atheist who believes that no gods exist while constantly arguing that any and every god you've ever heard about doesn't exist?

Or, your god doesn't exist. You'll never convince any critical thinker ever

And here you reveal again the bankruptcy of your argument, which depends on atheists believing something the agnostic atheists all deny. Why do you think it's a good idea for you to post that? You show the thread how you think. You choose to believe something by faith against the available evidence and then accuse others of lying.

How about some insight? What if I made a similar argument to you.

Me: "You're really an atheist lying about your god belief."

You: "No I'm not. I've been consistent in stating that I believe in a god."

Me: "No you don't. You're a theist dishonestly claiming that you're not really a theist."

How do you think that that would make me look if I posted it? That's what insight is. Look at me making that argument. What do you see. Now look at yourself making that argument and deduce what others see and how that undermines you. Or don't. Like I said, what the theist believes seldom matter to the critical thinking atheist. But I thought you might care.

When it comes to being unclear, I don't think you're in any position to be throwing any accusations.

You're wrong. I take great pains in being clear, reasonable, and comprehensive and am easily understood by peers. If you don't understand me, I'll can expand, but that's not been helpful in the past. You still don't know how atheists self-define.

They become emotional becase you are attacking their beliefs

I was referring to you becoming emotional here.

And I don't "attack" your beliefs. That's another emotional judgment from you. I challenge them with rebuttal. It's your responsibility to control your reactions, or at least the expression of them.

Look to the atheists you think so little of for guidance. They all disagree with you, but don't have an emotional response to you. They just debate in good faith and good spirit as I am doing now.

Then he is a fool. Blind skepticism is no more intelligent a choice than blind belief.

Blind skepticism? Does that phrase have meaning? Blind belief is a coherent phrase, one which defines faith, but blind skepticism seems oxymoronic. Can you provide an example to clarify what you mean, and without using words like fool, ego, righteous, and lying?

The 'believer' has no obligation whatever to justify or explain his beliefs to you or to anyone else. We are free to believe as we choose

Of course not. And I have no opinion about those beliefs except that they are faith-based and not right for me - UNTIL someone adds that they are derived from valid reason applied to evidence. When they do that, they've crossed over from their lane into the one inhabited by the critical thinker, and that gets a rebuke. [cont.]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It agitates people because it is so arrogant and insulting when you assume that you are everyone else's "belief police" when you clearly are not.

I police my own beliefs using the method I've described. I debate the beliefs of others when I disagree. If they become agitated, that's on them. There's no good reason for that, and one owes to himself and others to police that in himself if he has the necessary insight and ability. It's a form of self-discipline. It's what self-actualization is about. It begins with insight, and is followed by corrective techniques where applicable. One makes oneself a canvas or block of marble and actively and with purpose and a goal creates the person he want to be to the extent he can.

We do that in part with extinction of bad habits, which means recognizing the problem these habits create and refusing to indulge them once we notice ourselves slipping back into them. Indulging them reinforces them. Actively not doing that leads to their extinction. You can do that here if you want. Just stop indulging counterproductive behaviors like posting emotionally and misrepresenting and deliberately offending others. You don't have to be that way if you agree, [1] it would be better for you and others if you weren't, [2] can recognize that behavior when it wants to manifest before it does, [3] and choose not to indulge it. You will change, and you will have been both the artists and the canvas. That's self-actualization, amigo - a gift from me to you. Or you can choose to be offended and rage, and keep reinforcing habits that are a disservice to you.

If I haven't convinced you yet, suppose we were discussing your son and daughter, and you had the ability to make them either way - emotionally incontinent or cool. Which would you think would serve them best? This is another example of insight. Begin with sight - look at others like you - and then project back and see yourself as they do, or at least a lot more closely.

Or don't. It's your life.

========

I'm going to devote a few paragraphs to illustrating this important point. Bear with me, please. The bridge references here probably won't be of value or interest to you, but it isn't necessary to follow that to benefit from the illustration.

I'm teaching bridge to a longtime acquaintance who I've always been fond of, but he's had two emotional reactions to my methods that have cost him in the last three weeks. I still play online with him three times a week, keep notes on what transpired, copy images of our bridge hands, and prepare a summary email of our day's play. Sonny likes those so much that we're still doing it during his ten weeks at an Italian villa before his late dinners with his wife and traveling companions.

But twice now, I've departed from just "here's how you bid this hand" and "here's how you play that suit" or "here's how you can tell partner what you hold by how you follow suit and discard" and broached his topic of his exceedingly slow progress after six months. I want to discuss studying habits with him, but twice I've ventured there and twice had the door slammed with angry reactions. "End of discussion," read one, and "I have not read nor will I read your last email" read the second.

I had previously mentioned that replies in the form of "this is what I was thinking when I did that" after I've explained why it's incorrect aren't helpful unless what he is saying is that he still doesn't see why it's wrong, and also, that his comments should indicates that he now understands if he does. He didn't like that. It led to an emotional reaction that chilled the teaching process as you'll see below.

I'll illustrate:

Me: "You played well today. Your judgment on whether to bid or pass seems very good. Regarding that missed New Minor Forcing, my plan now is to not use any conventions that you haven't shown that you recognize until you use it yourself one day, then I will re-add it. The first time you make a NMF bid properly, I'll start making the bid again myself. It makes no sense to me to keep doing this before you learn them. Now, it's your job to study and learn those conventions you'd like to play."

Him: "That's just masturbation - good for you, useless to me."

What a terrible response to your teacher. I explained why it does nothing for me, but that's the email he chose not to read (see below). Instead he sent me this last week:

"In our case, the rules are going to be as follows:

1. If I have not immediately acknowledged a mistake, you are welcome to remind me in short, concise terms and we go on from there with no more mention of the mistake. Unlike too many players, I never correct a partner's play. Occasionally, rarely, I will say something like "Did you consider X?"
2. You will not threaten to limit your play to omit any conventions or agreements of play until I "learn how to play" that convention or agreement. Assume I know how to play that item.
3. You will make no denigrating comments.

I do not wish to see or hear any verbiage on this subject. Should you attempt such, it will not be read and I will assume you do not wish to continue our Bridge relationship and I will not bother you further. I have not read nor will I read your last email. If you wish to continue, accept the invitation to play at our usual time this morning."

This is a maladaptive, counterproductive response. You see what he called a denigrating comment. I am allowed to give bridge tips, but discussing his failure to assimilate them and ways to overcome that are off limits.

We've continued since by his rules because I like him, we socialize together with our wives, and I have other plans for these emails.

This has come since (sorry about the jargon):

Me: "1NT [No Trump] was an underbid. With 19 HCPs [high card points], your call is 2NT if you think NT is a good call with 4-4-4-1 shape [bridge hands are 13 cards, sometimes in the shape of three 4-card suits and a singleton]. You don't want me passing 1NT, which is what I'd have done with 5-3-3-2 shape. You also have a 2H (reverse, unbalanced 16+) available to you, and you're strong enough for a jump shift to 3C. Over your 2NT, my call would 3C (New Minor Forcing), which asks about your major suits and uncovers a 4-4 heart fit. Also, my 2H also bid tells you I have 5+ spades as well as 4+ hearts. The point is, it doesn't make sense that you rebid 1NT (shows a balanced 12-14 HCPs) and then 4H (promises at least 16 points, which you had), since I could have as few as few as 8 points."

He: "I was worried you could have only 6 VP in lieu of the 10 you had. You would have passed with 6 and we would have done well to make 1NT. But with 2H, I could reevaluate my hand to full potential."

This is just the kind of "this is what I was thinking when I did that" answer I told him previously was useless. You tell me whether he understood what I meant. I can't tell, but because of his emotional outbursts, I won't investigate. What I'd like to know is whether he would do it again or he knows better now. Isn't that part of my job as mentor?

Instead, he gets whatever little he can gleam with his inefficient learning methods. If he could see this like I do and how it hurts him, he'd change that. But he not only not into self-actualization, he doesn't let others help shape him, either, which is also an extremely common malady on theses threads. Maybe you've seen it, too.

I believe that my advice here regarding self-actualization is excellent and can help to change any life for the better, but only if it is seriously considered and tested. Do you disagree?

 

[Yerda]

We certainly can, @Yerda

As it happens, gods and deities are not among those things. Not at the current moment of human culture, after so many centuries of effort at making the ideas contradictory and confused.

Maybe not generally, no. But we can talk about particular ideas of gods whenever we talk to a person who has a particular idea of gods.

 

[dybmh]

Exhibit D:

watering down the concept [ of ignosticsm ]

It really comes down to either accepting that ignosticism is necessary because there is a huge variety of mutually exclusive conceptions of deities roaming free without proper acknowledgement or pretending otherwise.

This is, at best, watering down the meaning of ignosticsm. Ignosticsm states, per the definition in this thread, that no coherent defintion exists. All you're saying here is there are many definitions which conflict. But really, it's just garden variety agnosticsm. "I don't know which one is correct."

"It cannot be known..." = agnostic.

"No defintion exists" = ignostic.

 

[dybmh]

Rather, ignotiscism can be made unnecessary ONCE the proper clarifications are offered.

Which is rarely the case, odd as that is.

You got one, and the reaction was petulant.

One very simple defintion is 'creator'.