What do moderates think Jesus died for?

[Bucky Ball]

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist.

Non-sequitur ... so what ? They are two different concepts. 
It appears you don't actually know what the terms mean. 

Go re-read the definition of igtheism. Given that definition, "ignostic atheism" is an oxymoron.

---

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist

A non-sequitur. So what ? If they say they are agnostic atheists, BOTH terms have specific meanings. 
Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron ... read the definition of ignosticism.

---

You define your own beliefs however you want. 
You don't get to define anything for anyone else, and your opinion of the matter is irrelevant.
Atheism is not agnosticism and neither is it igtheism.
Calling everyone an atheist is as ignorant and childish as assuming a non-believer knows less about religion than believers. .

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron. 
Read the definitions

Atheism and agnosticism are separate concepts. If someone chooses to use them together, they still remain separate concepts.

---

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron.

[Bucky Ball]

BTW, the forum is screwed up ... my posts were not visible, (until now) thus duplicates.

[Acrobat]

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist.

Non-sequitur ... so what ? They are two different concepts. 
It appears you don't actually know what the terms mean. 

Go re-read the definition of igtheism. Given that definition, "ignostic atheism" is an oxymoron.

---

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist

A non-sequitur. So what ? If they say they are agnostic atheists, BOTH terms have specific meanings. 
Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron ... read the definition of ignosticism.

---

I’m not defining your personal beliefs, I’m defining terms, along the lines that these terms have been defined by other atheists.

You said atheism is not agnosticism, while many atheists would define themselves as agnostic atheist. By this sort of implication, of the meaning of terms, you’d fall into the bracket of an ignostic atheist, whether you like that label or not. Your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron. 
Read the definitions

Atheism and agnosticism are separate concepts. If someone chooses to use them together, they still remain separate concepts.

---

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron.

Atheism: a lack of belief in God
Ignostic: someone who lacks a belief in God, because he doesn’t even know what the term God means, or finds it too ambiguous, or incoherent.

Ignostic: an atheist, whose reasons for their lack of belief is incoherency of the term God/s.

Ironically in your own bio, you refer to yourself as an atheist as well: “Will be one of their first atheist grads”

So pardon me for referring to you as an atheist, even though you referred to yourself as such.

Boom. Mic drop.

[Bucky Ball]

Non-sequitur ... so what ? They are two different concepts. 
It appears you don't actually know what the terms mean. 

Go re-read the definition of igtheism. Given that definition, "ignostic atheism" is an oxymoron.

---

A non-sequitur. So what ? If they say they are agnostic atheists, BOTH terms have specific meanings. 
Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron ... read the definition of ignosticism.

---

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron. 
Read the definitions

Atheism and agnosticism are separate concepts. If someone chooses to use them together, they still remain separate concepts.

---

Ignostic atheism is an oxymoron.

Atheism: a lack of belief in God
Ignostic: someone who lacks a belief in God, because he doesn’t even know what the term God means, or finds it too ambiguous, or incoherent.

Ignostic: an atheist, whose reasons for their lack of belief is incoherency of the term God/s.

Ironically in your own bio, you refer to yourself as an atheist as well: “Will be one of their first atheist grads”

So pardon me for referring to you as an atheist, even though you referred to yourself as such.

Boom. Mic drop.

That was written and copied a LONG time ago, I may update it some day ... but do go ahead and congratulate yourself, and smack your self on the back ... if it makes you feel good.

You STILL seem to think you get to tell people what they are thinking.

Igtheism dismisses atheism, as atheism gives far too much credit to ancient (mostly anthropomorphized) memes that are undeserving of even a second's attention or energy.
Comparative Mythology knows about the human origins of every one of the gods cooked up in human history.
Why should anyone have to actually go so far as to say the idea that any of them being real is actually is so preposterous, it's beyond description.

Until, or unless, (which will never happen) a coherent definition of any god is proposed, the concept is meaningless and undeserving of even a label, OR the minute it takes to cook up a label.
Do we need to call ourselves apinksparklyunicornists ? No. The gods are no more a valid concept than pink sparkly unicorns. There is no "thing" that is valid in a-"theism".

[Acrobat]

You STILL seem to think you get to tell people what they are thinking.

No, i'm just telling them what category their particular beliefs fall into. If someone came in here saying they believe in God, pointing out that this person is a theist isn't telling them what they are thinking. The person can protest all he wants trying to suggest that though he believes in God, he's not a theist, but he'd be wrong. Theism implies a belief in god/s, while atheism is a lack of such beliefs.

You can tell me your a fish all you want, I'm not denying that you think this about yourself, but you're not a fish.

igtheism dismisses atheism, as atheism gives far too much credit to ancient (mostly anthropomorphized) memes that are undeserving of even a second's attention or energy.
Comparative Mythology knows about the human origins of every one of the gods cooked up in human history.

Please elaborate, how does a lack of belief in god/s (atheism) give far too much credit to ancient memes, etc...?

Until, or unless, (which will never happen) a coherent definition of any god is proposed, the concept is meaningless and undeserving of even a label.
Do we need to call ourselves apinksparklyunicornists ?

No, but I lack a belief in apinksparklyunicornists, and if there was a predefined label representative of folks who lack such a belief, i'd fall under that label.

[Bucky Ball]

If someone came in here saying they believe in God, pointing out that this person is a theist isn't telling them what they are thinking.

Yes it is.
They have already told you they accept that the notion of a deity is coherent, and you are agreeing/confirming their position with another label.
In order to be an "a-theist" there has to be something to "lack". Since there are no gods, and the concept is incoherent, there is nothing to lack.

[Acrobat]

If someone came in here saying they believe in God, pointing out that this person is a theist isn't telling them what they are thinking.

Yes it is.
They have already told you they accept that the notion of a deity is coherent, and you are agreeing/confirming their position with another label.
In order to be an "a-theist" there has to be something to "lack". Since there are no gods, and the concept is incoherent, there is nothing to lack.

In my hypothetical, the person who indicates he believes in God, is rejecting the label that he's a theist. He is wrong, because theism mean a belief in God/s, 

In order to be a-theist, you just have to lack a belief. 

If you find a concept too incoherent to believe in, you lack a belief. 

Coherency might lead you to accept that belief or deem it as false, but it's not required to lack a belief in it. 

If you ask me do I believe in xjoiuiuiur, I'd say I lack a belief in it, because I don't even know what the means. Knowing what it means might change this, but lacking knowledge of its meaning, leads me to lack a belief in in. 

the incoherency is justification for my lack of belief one way or the other.

[Bucky Ball]

Yes it is.
They have already told you they accept that the notion of a deity is coherent, and you are agreeing/confirming their position with another label.
In order to be an "a-theist" there has to be something to "lack". Since there are no gods, and the concept is incoherent, there is nothing to lack.

In my hypothetical, the person who indicates he believes in God, is rejecting the label that he's a theist. He is wrong, because theism mean a belief in God/s, 

That's not what you said here, (or at least is not at all clear).

If someone came in here saying they believe in God, pointing out that this person is a theist isn't telling them what they are thinking

In order to be a-theist, you just have to lack a belief. 

Again, YOU don't get to tell anyone what they think. In order for ME to be an atheist, THEISM has to be a coherent and defined *thing*. It isn't.
Therefore one of the many possible positions in igtheism may be a category for some.

If you find a concept too incoherent to believe in, you lack a belief. 

There is nothing to lack as there is NO CONCEPT worth addressing.

Coherency might lead you to accept that belief or deem it as false, but it's not required to lack a belief in it. 

I neither accept the belief nor deem it as false ... there is nothing to lack. There is no value in a label or need to take any position with respect to complete nonsense.

If you ask me do I believe in xjoiuiuiur, I'd say I lack a belief in it, because I don't even know what the means. Knowing what it means might change this, but lacking knowledge of its meaning, leads me to lack a belief in in. 

That's nice. YOU get to do what you want. YOU do not get to tell others how and what they think.

the incoherency is justification for my lack of belief one way or the other.

Thank you for describing your thought process, which is valid FOR YOURSELF.

[Acrobat]

Yes it is.
They have already told you they accept that the notion of a deity is coherent, and you are agreeing/confirming their position with another label.
In order to be an "a-theist" there has to be something to "lack". Since there are no gods, and the concept is incoherent, there is nothing to lack.

In my hypothetical, the person who indicates he believes in God, is rejecting the label that he's a theist. He is wrong, because theism mean a belief in God/s, 

In order to be a-theist, you just have to lack a belief. 

If you find a concept too incoherent to believe in, you lack a belief. 

Coherency might lead you to accept that belief or deem it as false, but it's not required to lack a belief in it. 

If you ask me do I believe in xjoiuiuiur, I'd say I lack a belief in it, because I don't even know what the means. Knowing what it means might change this, but lacking knowledge of its meaning, leads me to lack a belief in in. 

the incoherency is justification for my lack of belief one way or the other.

Well, here lies the rub. 

You have your own particular criteria of what constitutes as ignostic and as an atheist, than others, including those who label themselves ignostic. 

I reject your definition, and accept there's. Under that definition you're an atheist. I am not claiming something about your particular belief, but under what label they fall under. 

I am under no obligation to assume your definition is correct, and their's is wrong. Especially given that you seem confused yourself, by referring to yourself as both ignostic and an atheist in your profile. 

But here are others who use a definition of ignostic, where it's not mutually exclusive with atheist. 

http://damienmarieathope.com/2018/07/ign...on-of-god/

https://theethicalskeptic.com/tag/ignostic/

https://agnostic.com/post/11606/any-othe...ning-up-ig

From thus forward I will refer to you as the Ignostic Atheist Bucky Ball.

[Bucky Ball]

Well, here lies the rub. 
You have your own particular criteria of what constitutes as ignostic and as an atheist, than others, including those who label themselves ignostic. 

Nope.
"Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition. It may also be described as the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Not particular at all.
 

I reject your definition, and accept there's.*

Good for you.
Irrelevant. You get to do what ever you like, you don't get to define anything for anyone else. * It's "theirs" BTW.

I am not claiming something about your particular belief .....

Yes you are, and you are wrong. They do not fall under the label you claim.

Especially given that you seem confused yourself, by referring to yourself as both ignostic and an atheist in your profile. 

You have already been instructed that the profile is outdated, Bozo ... now I will assume you are acting in bad faith.

I will refer to you as the Ignostic Atheist Bucky Ball.

You do whatever you like. You will be wrong. Referring me to what others think is STILL your basic MISTAKE.

BTW, please explain why it is, that it is SO important to you to get people all labeled up in your simplistic labels ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentiveness