What is Ignosticism?

[haig]

The concept/reality of god is far from meaningless or useless.....just ask the billions of religious folk. It may be meaningless to you and that's OK.

Everyone has their own idea what god is or does.....I see from your comments that you have some ideas as well on what god needs to be and do. That is a form of definition by the way.

My point above is that even though folks have a different idea about what god is or means or does, in the views of most folks a common trait would be supernatural. God can be rejected on that simple basis alone.

Dismissing the existence of god because you can't define god is a philosophical concept. To walk around saying your "definition of god is meaningless therefor god does not exist" is not what I would call a convincing argument. People who believe in a god have their own definition of what that means, and will vary from person to person, religion to religion. That is human nature. Even within specific religions, god will mean different things to different people.

Ignosticism is a pompus dismissal of god and religion. It's like saying "I'm not even going to challenge why you believe in god because you can't even define god, so there!" 

You just contradicted yourself.
First you say "THE concept/reality is far from meaningless or useless" .... then you say "Everyone has their own idea of what god is or does"
If everyone has their own idea, there is no "the" anything. Thanks for making my point.

The POINT of Ignosticism is there is no coherent definition of a god.
The fact that there are billions of incoherent different ideas is totally irrelevant.

You can call it whatever you like, and say Ignosticism is "pompous", but I see YOU did not offer a coherent definition of a god.
I don't *bother* to challenge anyone's beliefs ... who determined THAT was a standard ? Are you in 2nd Grade ?
I will dismiss as nonsense whatever I find to be nonsense, with or without anyone's approval. If you find it pompous, too bad.

Ignosticism stands. No one here can come up with a definition of a god that cannot be shot down in 5 seconds.

You forgot to add "so there!"

[The Grand Nudger]

The fact that you can happen to find or make up definitions is totally irrelevant.

If it takes you more than five seconds to knock them down, it does. 

Beings are not defined into reality. Your definitions do not make beings a reality and are incoherent.

No one said they are.  I can define a dragon..that won't make one appear.  I'm not being tasked with making gods appear..though, only defining the term.

There are no "supernal" (anthropomorphized) anything. It's a mythological category, and there is no definition that.

OFC there aren't....but that doesn't change the fact that they were described as such in the stories about them.

I could care less what Christianity says. Every single attribute they claim is easily refuted.
Knowing what people are talking about does not make anything a reality.
If people are talking about "Babe Ruth being a baseball immortal" .... does that in fact make him immortal ?

Nope, but you know what they mean when they say it..right?  Immortality Ignosticism utterly defeated.

[Bucky Ball]

The fact that you can happen to find or make up definitions is totally irrelevant.

If it takes you more than five seconds to knock them down, it does. 

Beings are not defined into reality. Your definitions do not make beings a reality and are incoherent.

No one said they are.  I can define a dragon..that won't make one appear.  I'm not being tasked with making gods appear..though, only defining the term.

There are no "supernal" (anthropomorphized) anything. It's a mythological category, and there is no definition that.

OFC there aren't....but that doesn't change the fact that they were described as such in the stories about them.

I could care less what Christianity says. Every single attribute they claim is easily refuted.
Knowing what people are talking about does not make anything a reality.
If people are talking about "Babe Ruth being a baseball immortal" .... does that in fact make him immortal ?

Nope, but you know what they mean when they say it..right?  Immortality Ignosticism utterly defeated.

You seem to be under the impression that declaring victory is the same as actually winning an argument. LMAO
(As I stated above) knowing generally what someone is talking about, does not make the claims they are making true. 
If that were true, EVERY scientist's claims who ever made claims about a subject they were found to be WRONG on would be as valid as the side which was found to be true.
Ignosticism as a position, has many adherents. No one has to accept the Third Grade definitions of the gods, (of all places here ... that's hilarious). Saying it's "utterly defeated" is a delusional as Trump saying he's worth 10 billion dollars. If Ignostocism works for some ... it works.
People get to label themselves however they chose. If testosterone-filled idiots need to turn it into a win-lose, it's nothing but a measure of their personal insecurity.

[Angrboda]

Any member of a set of supernatural anthropomorphized entities alleged to have authority over some function of this world (real or imagined).  I defined it this way in the thread that lead to this one, lol.

We could go with a literary def too.  The focal point of divinity narratives.

We could go with a specific description of an individual god.

\Heres what the internet has to say


The thing that makes them gods is recognizability in the set, recognizability with respect to each other.  We can even classify them into subsets.  Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_de...sification

All of that, is why ignosticism can't stand.  It's only a sensible position the very -first- time you hear the term "gods".  After that, you have an idea what folks are talking about..and if you want specifics you need only ask.

The fact that you can happen to find or make up definitions is totally irrelevant.
Beings are not defined into reality. Your definitions do not make beings a reality and are incoherent.
There are no "supernal" (anthropomorphized) anything. It's a mythological category, and there is no definition of that specifically involved here.
I could care less what Christianity (or any other religion) claims. Every single attribute they claim is easily refuted. Every one. It's why I have an advanced degree in the subject.
Knowing what people are talking about does not make anything a reality.
If people are talking about "Babe Ruth being a baseball immortal" .... does that in fact make him immortal ?
You can't possibly be serious.
You're also equivocating here, to the max.
The notion that when someone "talks about or references a god" is the SAME thing as actually trying to "define and claim a "real god" for themselves
are totally different concepts.

Saying that the named thing doesn't, or even cannot, exist is not the same as saying that there is no thusly named thing, real or imaginary. As previously pointed out, reference doesn't require coherence, even if it were apparent that the concept of god, or this or that concept of god, is incoherent. You've abandoned ignosticism in favor of a debate more favorable to you. That is nothing more than goalpost shifting.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be under the impression that declaring victory is the same as actually winning an argument. LMAO

Well..it's been more than five seconds.  We take em where we can get em. 

(As I stated above) knowing generally what someone is talking about, does not make the claims they are making true. 

OFC not, but it makes their claim intelligible...defeating ignosticism.  If you know what they're talking about...you can't, in good faith, claim not to understand the word..or in light of a specific god....again in good faith, claim that what they are talking about is too ambiguous.

If someone told you that they believed in god, Christ Jesus - you know what they're talking about, even if you don't believe it.

If that were true, EVERY scientist's claims who ever made claims about a subject they were found to be WRONG on would be as valid as the side which was found to be true.
Ignosticism as a position, has many adherents. No one has to accept the Third Grade definitions of the gods, (of all places here ... that's hilarious). Saying it's "utterly defeated" is a delusional as Trump saying he's worth 10 billion dollars. If Ignostocism works for some ... it works.
People get to label themselves however they chose. If testosterone-filled idiots need to turn it into a win-lose, it's nothing but a measure of their personal insecurity.

Things can work without being rationally consistent or ideologically coherent.  Take belief in gods..for example, lol.

The above has been a wonderful demonstration of why I consider ignosticism a rhetorical device. Useful, perhaps, but not compelling. That you feel compelled to argue with me about whether or not gods are real or make believe (as though this had anything to do with ignosticism) means that you do know what we're talking about, frankly. Whatever utility it might have in getting believers to fuck right the fuck off is lost on me, since I don't believe in fairy tales anyway. That argument is wasted breath between us. I'm showing you how any intelligible and serviceable definition for a god defeats a different position. Not atheism. Ignosticism.

Follow? At it's very best....ignosticism is only an invitation to evangelism.

[KevinM1]

Would the people taking issue with ignosticism have the same issues with theological noncognitivism? Or are the two essentially the same?

[brewer]

Bucky, we have (had) a theist here that claimed her only definition was: god is love.

I guess I'm wondering if you think love exists.

[Whateverist]

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?

Nope, not just a dodge. "God" is described in ways that make no sense and in such a variety of ways that it is always possible than an innocuous enough usage is in play to which I could assent.

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 don't see the terms as mutually exclusive and I claim both. Just because something is too poorly defined for me to be sure what people are talking about doesn't mean it can't have a meaning that escapes me and under some definition or other, maybe it can exist. Pretty hard to know what you don't know, especially when, based on the various ways different people use the word you can't be sure what the hell they are on about.

[KevinM1]

For me, it's not a matter of individual gods being poorly defined. Many are, or are at least self-contradictory with regards to how they operate, what their motives are, etc. But that's all easy enough to dismiss on a case-by-case basis.

My problem is not having a firm grasp of what godhood actually means. The foundation of all gods is the supernatural, which I said before is a cipher posing as a legitimate idea. Is a ghost a god? If not, why not? Is there some power/influence threshold that must be crossed before some supernatural being can qualify as a god? Do the kami of Shinto qualify? What about dead ancestors in the cultures that revere/worship them?

So, yeah, it's the general notion of godhood that I find to be unintelligible. What are the attributes that separate a god from not-a-god?

[Whateverist]

What are the attributes that separate a god from not-a-god?

Boy you got me.  It is quite a hodgepodge.  Could be the creator of everything, or somethings, or nothing at all.  Could be something as innocuous as love.  I think it is a very poorly defined class of things.  About the only thing they have in common is being undetectable.  

There is a reason to mention ignosticism.  How are we supposed to know if one exists if the criteria are different in every case?  For me, what has given rise to so much god belief for so long has got to be something natural.  (Nothing else exists so far as I know, but god belief certainly has.)