(October 6, 2018 at 4:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:(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?
I used to be agnostic because the concept of a personal god made no logical sense to me. There is zero evidence for it; it's all based upon faith. But if everyone else was into it, maybe there was something to it. Then after many years of personal reflection and accumulated scientific knowledge, I've decided there simply is no personal god. Since this is what most people are referring to—at least in America—it's easy to be an atheist. To me, a personal "God" is essentially an adult version of "Santa". That is, "he" watches over you, punishing and rewarding accordingly. Adults don't believe in Santa, but they do believe in God—Go figure!
Myths are for weak minds—Thinking takes effort—Following is easier