Ignosticism

[VoidCat]

I think the defination on this thread is poorly worded. I say this based on some posts online I've found. Like this one

Ignostic vs Agnostic: When To Use Each One In Writing?

Are you confused about the difference between ignostic and agnostic? You're not alone. While these terms may seem similar, they actually have distinct

thecontentauthority.com

@dybmh. @LuisDantas

 

[VoidCat]

I think the defination on this thread is poorly worded. I say this based on some posts online I've found. Like this one

Ignostic vs Agnostic: When To Use Each One In Writing?

Are you confused about the difference between ignostic and agnostic? You're not alone. While these terms may seem similar, they actually have distinct

thecontentauthority.com

It seems to be based on personal view of what a god is not based on what others view it as. So in theory one could believe there is no good definition for God that they personally agree with but could still debate with someone based on what their definition of God is. They just need a definition first of what that person views God as. However personally they won't agree with said definition because to them no definition is best as there's not one they can think of that they'd agree with as there's so many defintions it seems ill defined. Am i understanding this right @LuisDantas


This is probably poorly worded but im trying to think of how best to word my thoughts

 

[VoidCat]

It seems to be based on personal view of what a god is not based on what others view it as. So in theory one could believe there is no good definition for God that they personally agree with but could still debate with someone based on what their definition of God is. They just need a definition first of what that person views God as. However personally they won't agree with said definition because to them no definition is best as there's not one they can think of that they'd agree with as there's so many defintions it seems ill defined. Am i understanding this right @LuisDantas


This is probably poorly worded but im trying to think of how best to word my thoughts

It's kinda like how a lot monotheists view a deity different from me. I may talk to them on their idea of God and use their definition in discussion and not personally believe their idea of God to be nonsense but it may not be a definition I personally agree with in my own theology. Maybe an ignostic may see things similar- their personal definition is that there is no good defination for God in their worldview but in discussion may use someone else's and not think what that person is saying is nonsense

@dybmh youve done this with me before im sure. Being a monotheist I doubt you'd agree with me on a lot on what God is. I believe in many and the imperfect. I don't care if there is a creator or not and for all I know there may be there may not be. You believe in a perfect God, and only one and he's a creator of the universe. Very different views here but you dont think what i say is nonsense and i dont think that about you.

 

[VoidCat]

There is no clear definition one could use in one's personal beliefs according to ignosticism because there are so many. Everyone has a different one. Until you say what your defintion is there can be no way of knowing if that person believes in God or not. Thats from what i gathered I may be misunderstanding something

 

[VoidCat]

Here's an article that seems to support what im saying here but I'm not finished reading it
The Ignostic Method And The “God” Debate The Ignostic Method And The “God” Debate

The definition seems more complex then the few simple sentences that were provided.
@LuisDantas. @dybmh

I think the disagreement here may be due to a lack of knowledge on dybmh's part. He did mention earlier he's hardly came across the term. A simple google search and more pondering has shown me that it's more complicated the definition then the definition someone else on this thread provided(I done forgot who).

 

[VoidCat]

Virtually never

Not trying to hurt your feelings here dybmh. We friends. But this was your response to how often youve heard this term. You seem to have a lot of opinions on a topic you know virtually nothing about as if you havent heard the term much then you cant really know much about it.

We must do well to avoid bias. Which is what im trying to do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Personally I don't see it as redefinition, but rather definition.

It is a necessary if often neglected first step for any meaningful discussion about god-related matters.

@LuisDantas, I see it neither as redefinition or definition -- but rather the acknowledgement that something central and critical has been ignored, in order to facilitate belief.

 

[dybmh]

I think the defination on this thread is poorly worded. I say this based on some posts online I've found. Like this one

Ignostic vs Agnostic: When To Use Each One In Writing?

Are you confused about the difference between ignostic and agnostic? You're not alone. While these terms may seem similar, they actually have distinct

thecontentauthority.com

@dybmh. @LuisDantas

From the link: "the concept of God is undefined or incomprehensible."

From Luis: "there is a huge variety of mutually exclusive conceptions"

So, it's not that 'god' is undefined or incomprehensible. It's "it is unknowable which one is correct because they all conflict"

Also from the link: "it is impossible to even discuss"

This matches what I said originally, in my first reply which as, any discussion is futile.

And finally, from the link: "there must be a clear and coherent definition". Of course, no one will tell what coherent means, and claiming incoherence is often nothing more than intellectual laziness, and/or reluctance to have a mature conversation.

None the less a clear coherent defintion has been given: 'creator'. It's that simple. And as you can see the ignosticsm has collapsed as a result. Just one word defeats it. But I doubt very highly that an individual who claims this as their theological position will admit it.

 

[dybmh]

Not trying to hurt your feelings here dybmh. We friends. But this was your response to how often youve heard this term. You seem to have a lot of opinions on a topic you know virtually nothing about as if you havent heard the term much then you cant really know much about it.

We must do well to avoid bias. Which is what im trying to do.

It doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm just going by what was given here in this thread combined with another thread somewhat recently in the atheist-dir where someone was strongly defending their ignosticsm. So, that's what I'm basing it on.

It's also interesting that the qualities I identified are infact being demonstrated in this thread. So, I do have support for what I'm saying.

 

[VoidCat]

It doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm just going by what was given here in this thread combined with another thread somewhat recently in the atheist-dir where someone was strongly defending their ignosticsm. So, that's what I'm basing it on.

It's also interesting that the qualities I identified are infact being demonstrated in this thread. So, I do have support for what I'm saying.

Perhaps. Either way I now have a story to write regarding my narrative essay that's due next week for homework. Confronting authority was one the topics. You older then me so most would say that makes you an authority over me. Even tho you not really to me...close enough.

 

[dybmh]

It's kinda like how a lot monotheists view a deity different from me. I may talk to them on their idea of God and use their definition in discussion and not personally believe their idea of God to be nonsense but it may not be a definition I personally agree with in my own theology. Maybe an ignostic may see things similar- their personal definition is that there is no good defination for God in their worldview but in discussion may use someone else's and not think what that person is saying is nonsense

@dybmh youve done this with me before im sure. Being a monotheist I doubt you'd agree with me on a lot on what God is. I believe in many and the imperfect. I don't care if there is a creator or not and for all I know there may be there may not be. You believe in a perfect God, and only one and he's a creator of the universe. Very different views here but you dont think what i say is nonsense and i dont think that about you.

100% correct in describing my POV.

 

[VoidCat]

100% correct in describing my POV.

Im not understanding? I may be missing something...imma go back and reread replies...i was doing homework watching a biology lecture through most of this thread.

 

[dybmh]

Im not understanding? I may be missing something...imma go back and reread replies...i was doing homework watching a biology lecture through most of this thread.

You said this about me:

"You believe in a perfect God, and only one and he's a creator of the universe. Very different views here but you dont think what i say is nonsense"

That is 100% correct describing my POV. what you say about your beliefs is not even close to nonsense. It makes a lot of sense. The only minor nitpick is I basically never use gender pronouns for God.

 

[crossfire]

How often have you heard of Ignosticism?

Do you feel that it is a sufficiently clear stance?

How useful do you feel it to be, and for which purpose?

Do you expect it to become less or better known in the future? Why?

I'm sure it won't take too long for someone to make the connection between "liberals can't define woman," and ignosticism.

 

[Heyo]

I think the defination on this thread is poorly worded. I say this based on some posts online I've found. Like this one

Ignostic vs Agnostic: When To Use Each One In Writing?

Are you confused about the difference between ignostic and agnostic? You're not alone. While these terms may seem similar, they actually have distinct

thecontentauthority.com

@dybmh. @LuisDantas

Interesting article but it confuses the philosophical with the colloquial definition of agnosticism.
"Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." - the article
"Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nature of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." - what the article missed.
It's this omission that watered the definition of Agnosticism down.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sure it won't take too long for someone to make the connection between "liberals can't define woman," and ignosticism.

... what?!?

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no clear definition one could use in one's personal beliefs according to ignosticism because there are so many. Everyone has a different one. Until you say what your defintion is there can be no way of knowing if that person believes in God or not. Thats from what i gathered I may be misunderstanding something

It is a bit deeper than that.

"God" isn't a concept of known existence and difficult definition in the same way that, say, "boardgame" or "life" are.

It is a concept of dubious and probably negative usefulness that is usually used without even the barest attempt at badly needed clarification.

 

[dybmh]

negative usefulness

which is also useful... a minor paradox. Knowing something is false is a statement of truth. It's like that. Knowing it's not-useful is actually useful.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the defination on this thread is poorly worded. I say this based on some posts online I've found. Like this one

Ignostic vs Agnostic: When To Use Each One In Writing?

Are you confused about the difference between ignostic and agnostic? You're not alone. While these terms may seem similar, they actually have distinct

thecontentauthority.com

@dybmh. @LuisDantas

That is a bit on the needlessly formal side, but basically correct.

I take issue with the claim that "all atheists are cognitivists", though. That betrays a form of prejudice about atheism, manifest in the claim that ignosticism/igtheism "is a threat to specific forms of atheism".

The reality about ignosticism and atheism, I would propose, is much, much simpler.

 

[dybmh]

That is a bit on the needlessly formal side, but basically correct.

I take issue with the claim that "all atheists are cognitivists", though. That betrays a form of prejudice about atheism, manifest in the claim that ignosticism/igtheism "is a threat to specific forms of atheism".

The reality about ignosticism and atheism, I would propose, is much, much simpler.

Which seems to indicate you are non-cognitivist. Which is fine. It just prohibits conversation about topics which you declare to be incomprehensible **to you**.