I stumbled across this: Ignosticism.
I'd never heard of it before. This probably belongs on the "Attributes of God" thread, but never mind.
"Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word 'God' has no coherent and unambiguous definition." [wiki]
@fmf said"Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are similar although, whereas the ignostic says '...every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God', the theological noncognitivist claims to have no concept whatever to label as "a concept of God", but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While some find the view to be compatible with both weak atheism and agnosticism, other philosophers consider ignosticism to be distinct." [see wiki]
Ignosticism
Talking about this issue, although it is merely one about how terminology applies to perceptions, is currently apt seeing as KellyJay appears to be insisting that NOT being a believer in the Christian/Abrahamic God equals denying "the possibility of something that transcends the universe."
Any thoughts on how the notion of "ignosticism" or "igtheism" can inform the hardline partisan posturing of religionists as they seek to commandeer the concept of "God"?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
05 Jul 22
@fmf saidWell, this isn't so much a notion as it is a false assertion that on some lonely Saturday nights I might tune into the ignostic disco-pop station run by some of my Arcturian cousins, and I think they have the right idea.
"Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are similar although, whereas the ignostic says '...every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God', the theological noncognitivist claims to have no concept whatever to label as "a concept of God", but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While some find the view to be c ...[text shortened]... orm the hardline partisan posturing of religionists as they seek to commandeer the concept of "God"?
05 Jul 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou're right.
Of course God can be defined by mere mortals.
They invented Him after all.
The god mortals define isn't the true and living God. Only the true and living God can define(reveal) Himself.
It's so simple a concept to grasp that even a mere mortal can understand that.
@fmf saidAny thoughts on how the notion of "ignosticism" or "igtheism" can inform the hardline partisan posturing of religionists as they seek to commandeer the concept of "God"?
"Ignosticism and theological noncognitivism are similar although, whereas the ignostic says '...every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God', the theological noncognitivist claims to have no concept whatever to label as "a concept of God", but the relationship of ignosticism to other nontheistic views is less clear. While some find the view to be c ...[text shortened]... orm the hardline partisan posturing of religionists as they seek to commandeer the concept of "God"?
Ignosticism" or Igtheism is not going to inform anyone of anything, no matter who they are. These terms make for interesting discussions in a college philosophy class but are too abstract have much relevance in the real world.
@mchill saidIf you, personally, are not capable of talking about these terms on an online Spirituality Forum, [1] OK, if that's the case, then don't try, and [2] when you start your own silly stumbling threads ~ you might now be held to your own 'Does it "have much relevance in the real world?" dictum'.
These terms make for interesting discussions in a college philosophy class but are too abstract have much relevance in the real world.
@fmf saidSorry fmf, but I can't change the facts. If you ask 100 average citizens what these terms say to them, you'll get little or no response. They're simply not relevant to people's lives.
If you, personally, are not capable of talking about these terms on an online Spirituality Forum, [1] OK, if that's the case, then don't try, and [2] when you start your own silly stumbling threads ~ you might now be held to your own 'Does it "have much relevance in the real world?" dictum'.
06 Jul 22
@fmf saidIn this case that's a very big "If" These terms may reflect a candid and realistic take on the human condition to you, but I'd wager most people have little use for them.
I disagree. If the terminology reflects a candid and realistic take on the human condition, then I think it is useful and therefore informative.
06 Jul 22
@mchill saidNobody is claiming that "most people" should use them. Gosh. Where did you get that idea from?
In this case that's a very big "If" These terms may reflect a candid and realistic take on the human condition to you, but I'd wager most people have little use for them.
You are bending yourself into a nothing-to-offer flavoured pretzel. If you don't want to or aren't capable of talking about the OP, then why do you keep posting?
@fmf saidIf you don't want to or aren't capable of talking about the OP, then why do you keep posting?
Nobody is claiming that "most people" should use them. Gosh. Where did you get that idea from?
You are bending yourself into a nothing-to-offer flavoured pretzel. If you don't want to or aren't capable of talking about the OP, then why do you keep posting?
I keep posting in an attempt to educate you on the necessity of staying on subjects that have some relevance in the real world, rather than stray off into La La land with your semi-interesting and semi-desperate attempts to bolster your case for atheism and/or agnosticism. In fact, there are some strong cases to be made for these, but your posts often don't qualify.