Ignosticism, Theism, or Gnostic Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

The negative way does not preclude one from making truth propositons about God though...not finite, not limited etc.

That's certainly true.

I think it precludes a complete definition, though, doesn't it?

Most definately :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that it matters whether a given definition is complete when items asserted form the basis of one's conclusion.

If you don't believe in fire breathing - for example...it won't matter if the person is asking about a fire breathing dragon or a fire breathing mole. The designation as fire breathing is sufficient to reject it's existence on that basis - even if fire breathing dragon is an insufficient definition of the creature itself.

[Fake Messiah]

Theism is consistently defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods,” so atheism is therefore “the absence of belief in the existence of a god or gods,” which makes it a broad term that has many implications, not just absolute denial.

So theists believe in a literal God: a living, thinking, supernatural being, as opposed to a metaphor such as “god is love” or “god is the universe”. If you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s), you are without theism, you’re an atheist.

If you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s) but aren’t sure none exist, you’re an atheist.

If you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s) but you like/follow some religious traditions (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or whatever) in which you were raised and maybe even agree with some of the religion’s nonsupernatural teachings (e.g., “Love thy neighbor”), you’re an atheist.

If you don’t have a belief in any literal god(s), but you wish there were a god and maybe still hold out hope for one to show up, you’re an atheist.

Atheist is the broadest term and, again, means only “the absence of a belief in a god or gods.” Agnostics, Secular/Humanistic Jews, Secular Humanists, Brights, some Buddhists, some Hindus, and all “apatheists” are atheists.

Agnostic is a useless term when used as a religious identifier. It states that gods, the finite details of the universe, etc., are simply unknowable, which is not an expression of belief or disbelief, but rather of knowledge. This is a totally useless concept because anyone can say that about everything. We don’t know with 100 percent certainty that Santa Claus isn’t up in the North Pole or that we are living in a Matrix.

Know does not imply perfect knowledge. I know there is no god just as surely as I know there is no Santa Claus, of which I am quite certain even though I’ve never been to the North Pole personally. Again, when Santa lands on my roof, I will believe. Until there is proof, Santa, like God, is a myth.

[brewer]

All statements are truth statements about a thing or things' existence or existences.

That needs a whole lot of philosophical justification.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Fake Messiah

Nominalism has become the existential crisis facing christian evangelism in the us, as another example.

[Belacqua]

That seems to be more an embracing of ignosticism by theists as anything else.

I suppose it could look that way to someone who knew nothing about the theory and practices of Plotinus and Proclus, or of Neo-platonic Christians like Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine.

They approach things in an entirely different way from the Rabbi Wine.

[Disagreeable]

Yes we do.

No, we don't 

All statements are truth statements about a thing or things' existence or existences.

Nope 

We don't have to define it but it would lead to miscommunication if we did not.

Not our problem 

So, on nobody, then.

No it falls on Gnostics because they claim to know

What do you and Vulcanlogician think I meant by 'have to', exactly? I don't see the problem. This isn't about onus. This is about making sense of things.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That seems to be more an embracing of ignosticism by theists as anything else.

I suppose it could look that way to someone who knew nothing about the theory and practices of Plotinus and Proclus, or of Neo-platonic Christians like Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine.

"Tis only the brilliance of light hiddeth thee." From the hymn, Immortal, Invisible.

Pairs nicely with...

"when you stare into the abyss too long, the abyss stares back at you." Paraphrase of Nietzsche.

...and it is this mystical approach that puts me at odds with most evangelicals and atheists who think all Christians are evangelicals.

[polymath257]

That seems to be more an embracing of ignosticism by theists as anything else.

I suppose it could look that way to someone who knew nothing about the theory and practices of Plotinus and Proclus, or of Neo-platonic Christians like Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine.

They approach things in an entirely different way from the Rabbi Wine.

Sheesh.....a joke?

Yes, I realize that ignosticism is different than negative theology.

[Ferrocyanide]

Someone asked about whether the definition of God is incoherent or unambiguous. Those are radically different things. Incoherent is a problem, but one that need be demonstrated.

If we take all the various claims about gods or god, yes they are incoherent.
One guy says that god is like a human.
Another says that he has a body. Another says he has a spirit.
A few people have told me that god is love.
In some versions, such as the jewish god, there is one god and he has existed forever. Or maybe jews are henotheist.
It is clear that the majority think that god has a brain (that it is some form of intelligence).

So, it certainly looks incoherent to me.

We do so with things all the time. As noted on this forum, there is no unambiguous definition of what a chair is, but we don't consider that a bar to talking about and believing in chairs.

This is a matter of certification. We can take an object and see if it can serve the purpose of a human for sitting down on it and we can certify it as a chair.
Sometimes, the sidewalk becomes a chair, sometimes a rock in the woods becomes a chair.
Objects can be multiple things, have multiple purposes.
Example:
I can use a rock to play tic tac toe on it and I can use it as a chair.

But what’s the deal with the definition of a god? The definition varies from person to person, from culture to culture.
So far, 0 objects have been certified as being a god.

Jesus has been certified as a god? Nope.
You need to perform a series of tests to certify him.
===> In fact, where is the certification process? <===

It has happened a few times that a christian has asked me:
“What are you going to say to god when you meet him?”

I replied to the christian:
“I would say: >>Hello, how are you. Why do you think that you are a god?<<
What will you do? Are you going to immediately bow down and worship some guy you never met before just because he has a sticker on his shirt that says “I am a god””.

The christian responds:
“I would just know that he is god.”

This tells me that the definition of a god is so shitty that there isn’t anything to look for.
When it comes to chairs, the definition is a functional definition.