Argument from noncognitivism

[blackstar]

If you look at my profile you will see that I am a theological noncognitivist. Some may not know what that means so I will share a link to the argument thereof.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/ath...gnitivism/

Moderator Notice
Although we don't normally allow linking a la the 30/30 rule, this is a good example of the exception.

[Qwest]

You are the first person I have seen bring up the difference between a weak atheist and a strong one! Not just here, almost anywhere! Although I say "I am not a theist" out loud, understanding these terms a few years ago helped Get me over the "Christian Guilt" for the last time. I have come a long way since then but thank you for the link.

[Angrboda]

But... but... he's not doing the dance!

[robvalue]

I'm an ignostic, which is pretty similar I think. Whether or not I'm technically also an atheist is a matter of definition.

[jenny1972]

why is noncognitivism considered strong atheism ?

[robvalue]

I suppose you could put it this way:

The phrase "there is a god" is meaningless (to an ignostic / non cog). So I know my answer must be the default state of non-belief in that statement until I at least understand it.

Of course, this doesn't stop someone coming along and calling an apple their God. So I may believe the statement if it was worded in terms I could understand.

Now that I write that out, ignosticism does correlate more with weak atheism if anything. You can't believe a phrase is false, if you don't understand it. Maybe non cog makes a stronger statement than I have supposed above, that such claimed things simply cannot exist. It all comes down to definitions, really.

[Foxaèr]

A noncognitivist seems to me to be a veritable psychopath, at least according to the standard of psychology.

Therefore, what does that make the theological noncognitivist?

[robvalue]

I suppose I read the phrase as being, "Theology contains nothing meaningful/real that can be thought about".

Or rather, the reality is limited to people's imaginations I suppose.

[Foxaèr]

Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e. statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt). A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world."[1] If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

[robvalue]

Huh. Well, that's confusing.

I agree that moral knowledge is impossible for the reasons stated, but that's not the same as God. I suppose it's being extended by saying knowledge of God is impossible. I agree with that, when god is used in anything other than a trivial sense.