(September 29, 2018 at 3:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Ignosticism is a rhetorical device.  Just because different people believe in different types of gods, with different attributes, doesn't mean that the term doesn't sensibly and recognizably signify.

I disagree with Khem here. I find ignosticism incredibly appealing as an epistemological position. To me, it says: "I will not believe in something that has not been clearly defined."

I'd like to hear from the ignostics, though. Is ignosticism merely a rhetorical device to you?

I'm an agnostic. My position wasn't selected for its rhetorical prowess. Rather, it is a definite statement concerning my knowledge of God. But I wanna hear from ignostics on this. What say you?

A major reason for me being gnostic atheist is ignosticism. As a scientist, definitions are critically important to me. For example, if you want to create life, intelligence or emotions, you first need to know what they are so you can then tell whether you have managed to build them.

The god concept is inherently undefinable. Yet anything that exists can eventually be defined. So if a god did exist, we'd eventually be able to learn about it, study it and define it. It would therefore no longer be a god, but an alien life form or something else.

No, it’s not a device for me. To answer a question accurately, I must understand what I’m being asked.

I can, of course, just decide for myself what I’m being asked and give an answer to that question. I can insert what I expect the other person is thinking about, or I can provide a multitude of possible definitions and answer each question differently.

The point is that my answer will vary depending on what someone means. It will vary significantly. I can give a breakdown of the most popular definitions I’m going to face, but even then, individual theists come up their own ideas that never quite conform to anything. I can’t stop them doing that, precisely because the word means nothing to begin with. There is no common theme to the word that isn’t disregarded by at least one popular definition.

And so, I can say I’m nominally an atheist, in that I’m most likely going to not believe in whatever you call god, statistically speaking. However, it’s not for me to tell the person what question they are asking, and there are some "Gods" I will agree do exist. It’s again not for me to play the No True Scotsman and force a person to conform to my ideas.

In summary, I’m interested in answering questions accurately, and on an individual basis. I will require extra details in every single case before I can give a meaningful answer. My disbelief, and my level of such, will vary. What I find complements this position very nicely indeed is apatheism. No one has ever given me a reason to care about any of the things people call "god". They may include something obviously real that I already care about in their definition of god, but in that case, I don’t care that they have called it "god".

I have come up with a formula which does, I think, cover every god idea I’ve yet heard. Each definition can be split into one or more of the following groups:

1) A creative force that made our reality

2) Various special abilities and accolades for the creative force

3) Relabelling things that are already known to exist, or abstract notions that already have a well-used meaning

4) World salad nonsense

I’ll be happy to take the god challenge, and apply this to any definition that can be found. I’ll be interested to see if it holds up. Personally, I’d prefer everyone agreed on definition 1 only, as I find the rest of them to be pointless. Sadly this will probably only be the case for deists.

My responses to each section are generally:

1) I have no opinion about that

2) This makes such a thing extremely unlikely

3) We already have words for that / you're equivocating

4) I don’t understand what this even means

The whole God concept is paradoxical.
As Mat said, once we can define it, it is no longer a "God". It's like Schrodinger's cat.
God is a mere thought experiment. Nothing more.

God, like dirty sex, is all in the mind.

(October 6, 2018 at 7:56 am)ignoramus Wrote: God, like dirty sex, is all in the mind.

You take that back!!!

(October 6, 2018 at 5:29 am)robvalue Wrote: No, it’s not a device for me. To answer a question accurately, I must understand what I’m being asked.

I can, of course, just decide for myself what I’m being asked and give an answer to that question. I can insert what I expect the other person is thinking about, or I can provide a multitude of possible definitions and answer each question differently.

The point is that my answer will vary depending on what someone means. It will vary significantly. I can give a breakdown of the most popular definitions I’m going to face, but even then, individual theists come up their own ideas that never quite conform to anything. I can’t stop them doing that, precisely because the word means nothing to begin with. There is no common theme to the word that isn’t disregarded by at least one popular definition.

How do you determine what a person means on other questions not having to do with God?

For example, if someone asks you, "Do you own a chair?" then how do you determine what they mean by a chair?

Do you ever discuss politics, philosophy, anything where words are not clearly defined?

How many ignostics on AF believe in love?

(October 6, 2018 at 9:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(October 6, 2018 at 5:29 am)robvalue Wrote: No, it’s not a device for me. To answer a question accurately, I must understand what I’m being asked.

I can, of course, just decide for myself what I’m being asked and give an answer to that question. I can insert what I expect the other person is thinking about, or I can provide a multitude of possible definitions and answer each question differently.

The point is that my answer will vary depending on what someone means. It will vary significantly. I can give a breakdown of the most popular definitions I’m going to face, but even then, individual theists come up their own ideas that never quite conform to anything. I can’t stop them doing that, precisely because the word means nothing to begin with. There is no common theme to the word that isn’t disregarded by at least one popular definition.

How do you determine what a person means on other questions not having to do with God?

For example, if someone asks you, "Do you own a chair?" then how do you determine what they mean by a chair?

Do you ever discuss politics, philosophy, anything where words are not clearly defined?

From my experience, everyone I have ever met means the same thing by "chair". The same goes for many other concepts. There are some words, however, that people vastly disagree about, and it’s those that I require clarification on. The irony is that even after years and years pursuing this question, that 4 part dissection is the best I can do. Most theists don’t even try to define it, in my experience, expecting me to debate myself I suppose!

(October 6, 2018 at 4:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: I disagree with Khem here. I find ignosticism incredibly appealing as an epistemological position. To me, it says: "I will not believe in something that has not been clearly defined."

I'd like to hear from the ignostics, though. Is ignosticism merely a rhetorical device to you?

I'm an agnostic. My position wasn't selected for its rhetorical prowess. Rather, it is a definite statement concerning my knowledge of God. But I wanna hear from ignostics on this. What say you?

Define "clearly".

Constantly requiring a definition that you except for concepts is an exercise in futility.