Ignosticism

[LuisDantas]

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.

No, negative is negative. No paradox there. The word brings obfuscation and promotes confusion. Simple as that.

 

[LuisDantas]

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**.

The first part is true. The second is both false and not a consequence of the first even hypothetically.

 

[dybmh]

No, negative is negative. No paradox there. The word brings obfuscation and promotes confusion. Simple as that.

.... and knowing that is useful. ( assuming it's true of course. )

Edit: how about another example: does it make sense that it is confusing? it's sensibly-confusing.

The first part is true. The second is both false and not a consequence of the first even hypothetically.

Does non-cognitvist mean "it is incomprehensible"? If not, what does it mean?

 

[crossfire]

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

... what?!?

It has become a transphobe "gotcha" question, and was put in the spotlight during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The question to Ketanji Brown Jackson "Can you provide a definition for the word woman? was designed in such a way that however she would answer, she would look bad.

Here's an article addressing it:

Define ‘Woman’

The new ‘gotcha’ phrase by transphobes — and a full answer

gen.medium.com

 

[RestlessSoul]

Does the world really need another ‘ism’?

 

[LuisDantas]

Does the world really need another ‘ism’?

This one? Yes. Yes it does, until and unless a literal miracle of common mutual understanding manifests itself.

Despite @PureX 's rather emphatic claims to the contrary, at this point in history we need Ignosticism as a concept much, much more than we are likely to ever have real, practical use for Agnosticism again.

Ignosticism directly addresses an incredibily common yet neglected hurdle that usually cripples discussion of god-beleif matters to the point of utter uselessness.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This one? Yes. Yes it does, until and unless a literal miracle of common mutual understanding manifests itself.

Despite @PureX 's rather emphatic claims to the contrary, at this point in history we need Ignosticism as a concept much, much more than we are likely to ever have real, practical use for Agnosticism again.

Ignosticism directly addresses an incredibily common yet neglected hurdle that usually cripples discussion of god-beleif matters to the point of utter uselessness.

Good luck with that. Not personally convinced that the hurdles you speak of have much to do with vocabulary tbh.

 

[LuisDantas]

Good luck with that. Not personally convinced that the hurdles you speak of have much to do with vocabulary tbh.

They were intentionally built for various reasons, certainly. But they have taken deep root in the common usage of vocabulary.

More significantly, they remain obfuscated and ill acknowledged. Ignosticism as a concept exists to directly address that flaw.

 

[RestlessSoul]

They were intentionally built for various reasons, certainly. But they have taken deep root in the common usage of vocabulary.

More significantly, they remain obfuscated and ill acknowledged. Ignosticism as a concept exists to directly address that flaw.

Well in the end, language being an organic process, it'll either find it's why into the lexicon, or die from misuse. Depends on how many people care enough to use it.

 

[PureX]

Why is it so difficult for people to view God as a possibility rather than a fact? Why are we demanding that God be presented to us as a fact, rather than a useful possibility. Can someone explain to me why this is such a huge impediment to consideration for them?

 

[lukethethird]

Why is it so difficult for people to view God as a possibility rather than a fact? Why are we demanding that God be presented to us as a fact, rather than a useful possibility. Can someone explain to me why this is such a huge impediment to consideration for them?

Why is it so difficult to define God in coherent and unambiguous terms?

 

[dybmh]

common yet neglected hurdle

Root cause analysis. what is the hurdle? what are the qualities that define it?

Good luck with that. Not personally convinced that the hurdles you speak of have much to do with vocabulary tbh.

Bingo! Vocabulary can be eliminated as the root cause.

They were intentionally built for various reasons,

This sort of claim about intentions requires Extra-Sensory-Perception reaching back 1000s of years. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. what is the evidence of the intentional obfuscation you described earlier. Answers in the general form of "what else could it be?" will be rejected as weak evidence. Arguing from ignorance.

 

[PureX]

Why is it so difficult to define God in coherent and unambiguous terms?

Because the term "God" refers to a condition that is beyond our ability to verify or define. Do you understand that not all conditions and circumstances are within our ability as humans to fully comprehend, or verify, or define? What world do you live in that this is not a common occurrence?

The origin of the universe, for example. We know it has a beginning, and apparently will have an end, of sorts. But we have no way of determining what the actual origin of the event was, or is, exactly. And we have no way to define what we can't know. So we continue to speculate about the many possibilities, as is a very human thing to do.

 

[dybmh]

Why is it so difficult for people to view God as a possibility rather than a fact? Why are we demanding that God be presented to us as a fact, rather than a useful possibility. Can someone explain to me why this is such a huge impediment to consideration for them?

IMO

Some people idolize knowledge which prohibits being saticfied with the possibilities. For these people having knowledge makes a person feel like a god when they compare themelves to others who don't. This god-like feeling is unique and addictive, and some people crave it. If these people acknowledge that somethings don't need to be fully known and to be fully defined it compromises access to their drug of choice, elitism. They can no longer kick others who do not have things fully defined and fully known. They are no longer feeling elite.

But, that's not what's happening in this thread. In general, online atheism is a political campaign. Individuals perceive irrational thinking as the cause for all manner of problems in their locality and perhaps globally; currently and perhaps throughout history. Belief/Faith ( in the past we have disagreed on these terms) is demonized as the root cause of irrational thinking. So, online atheists attack theism because it is a target they can shoot at. But really, their target is irrational thinking. They foolishly think that if theism ceased to be, then irrational thinking would dramaticaly decrease, and the world be a much-much better place.

If belief and/or faith is demonized and is the target, then they cannot and will not ever grant a possibility for a god. Possibilities of a god are an evil demon which they are trying to banish. "possibility" is a demon for them. Maybe imagine it as an allergic reaction. That's what I do.

IMO

 

[dybmh]

Why is it so difficult to define God in coherent and unambiguous terms?

it's not difficult. "creator" is clear, coherent, and easy to understand. do you deny it is easy, clear, and coherent? if so why?

 

[PureX]

IMO

Some people idolize knowledge which prohibits being satisfied with the possibilities. For these people having knowledge makes a person feel like a god when they compare themselves to others who don't. This god-like feeling is unique and addictive, and some people crave it. If these people acknowledge that somethings don't need to be fully known and to be fully defined it compromises access to their drug of choice, elitism. They can no longer kick others who do not have things fully defined and fully known. They are no longer feeling elite.

But, that's not what's happening in this thread. In general, online atheism is a political campaign. Individuals perceive irrational thinking as the cause for all manner of problems in their locality and perhaps globally; currently and perhaps throughout history. Belief/Faith ( in the past we have disagreed on these terms) is demonized as the root cause of irrational thinking. So, online atheists attack theism because it is a target they can shoot at. But really, their target is irrational thinking. They foolishly think that if theism ceased to be, then irrational thinking would dramatically decrease, and the world be a much-much better place.

If belief and/or faith is demonized and is the target, then they cannot and will not ever grant a possibility for a god. Possibilities of a god are an evil demon which they are trying to banish. "possibility" is a demon for them. Maybe imagine it as an allergic reaction. That's what I do.

IMO

That is an excellent explanation. And I have no doubt that there is some truth to it. We humans do very much like believing that we "know what's what" because knowledge equates to both security and power by our experience. Knowing how to anticipate and manipulate the world around us is how we humans survive and thrive. And a good many theists use their idea of God to enable them to fantasize that they have this knowledge/control just as a good many atheists use their hyper-inflated idea of science to do the exact same thing.

But it seems to me that what we humans are so good at, and what we are constantly doing in life, is identifying the various possibilities available to us within whatever circumstances we find ourselves in, so that we can choose to act on the possibilities that we desire to see manifested, most. And in acting on them, we very often do manage to bring them about. It's one of our "super powers".

And our faith in the God-possibility is a very good example of this. It's why billions of humans still engage in faith in their gods even after so many centuries of history and religious strife. It's BECAUSE IT WORKS for them. I am not religious because I have seen the pitfalls of it and it is not within my nature to "join up" ideologically. But even I can see that it is of great use and value to a lot of my fellow humans, and that they are able to use it to become better humans to each other. And even I can find similar value in engaging in faith in my own personal god-concept even if I am not inclined to joun up with any religion.

 

[Whateverist]

Interesting. I'd never heard of this 'ism'. It makes a valid point I suppose. I am quite a firm believer but try to avoid the word 'God'. I find that using that word ultimately leads to misunderstanding and confusion.

I don’t agree that it makes a valid point but like you I’ve often avoided the G word for the reason that it people often mean very specific things but don’t agree about what those should be.

I prefer to start by assuming the word means something that has been very important to lots of people for a long time and then look through literature, poetry and other arts to look at what that could be. Starting by imposing a definition so we can know just what we are talking about seems foolish.

 

[PureX]

I don’t agree that it makes a valid point but like you I’ve often avoided the G word for the reason that it people often mean very specific things but don’t agree about what those should be.

I prefer to start by assuming the word means something that has been very important to lots of people for a long time and then look through literature, poetry and other arts to look at what that could be. Starting by imposing a definition so we can know just what we are talking about seems foolish.

The artifice people choose to represent "God" in their mind is important, individually. It is not that important collectively. The God-phenomena is a collective human phenomena that can be discussed in that way without fussing over the many individualized mental representations.

 

[dybmh]

@LuisDantas , @lukethethird ,

are you both stumped? can't answer the questions?

Luke, what is unclear, incoherent, and ambiguous with the defintion 'creator'?

Luis, what is non-cognitivist if it is not "it is incomprehensible"?

 

[lukethethird]

it's not difficult. "creator" is clear, coherent, and easy to understand. do you deny it is easy, clear, and coherent? if so why?

Creationism is coherent, it makes sense to you?