I cannot call myself a theist, atheist or agnostic. I call myself a theological noncognitivist. I don't know how to believe that "that which created the universe (or universeS in the multiverse theory)" has any meaning at all, and that's what Christians claim to believe in, what atheists claim to disbelieve in, and what agnostics claim to withhold judgment on.
Why do I say it has no meaning at all? In short, because all the words we have come to learn in our lifetimes, we have come to learn in terms of, and ONLY in terms of, the universe (or the universes) . Think about how we have come to learn the word "create". We weren't born knowing the meaning of "create". How did we learn it? We learned it from hearing it used. We learned the word "create" from and only from hearing or reading cases of "X created Y". We heard "Edison created the incandescent lamp". Notice that Edison was one part of the universe(s) and the incandescant lamp was another separate part of the universe(s). That's a case of one part of the universe(s) creating another separate part of the universe(s). Maybe we heard "That bird created that nest". That's also a case of one part of the universe(s), the bird, creating another separate part of the universe(s), the nest.
Thus I claim that we could only have learned to interpret sentences of the form
"X created Y"
as synonymous with, and ONLY synonymous with, sentences of the form
"One part of the universe, X, created a separate part of the universe, Y"
So when Christians say
"God created the universe(s)",
the only way we could attempt to interpret that, using the only way we could have learned to use "create", is as
"One part of the universe(s), God, created another separate part of the universe(s), the universe(s).
Certainly that cannot make any sense. It's gobbledegook. Thus,
"God exists" makes no sense, "God doesn't exist" makes no sense, and "I don't know whether God exists or not" makes no sense.
That's why I cannot label myself "theist", "atheist" or "agnostic".
FI, saying "God does not exist" is the same as babbling "Smob does not exist". We don't say that.
IOW, I claim that theists do not believe in a god named "God", they only think they do.
I also do not say "I don't believe in any gods". That's because it is believed that the first god ever worshiped was the sun. And I'm certainly not going to say that I don't believe in the sun! 
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.@EdwinMcCravy
Could you tell me a religion that names a god as "God"?
I know enough about religions and what is their characteristic is that god always has a specific name that is different from "God."
Danail
Level 4
Feb 27, 2018
0
That is a positive form of rationality. It also seems to follow many of the philosophical things. From all of my observations and learning I like this quote from Mark Twain: "If there is a God, he is a malign thug."
gsiamne
Level 8
Feb 27, 2018
0
Mark Twain was an atheist, not a theological noncognitivist. "A malign thug" is meaningful, but "God" isn't.
Interesting post. Reminds me somewhat of logical positivism. Neat that you've put that kind of thought into it. Bit of a brain strainer for me, though. I'm happy to be a regular, run of the mill atheist.
MollyBell
Level 7
Feb 26, 2018
1
The logical positivists did claim the same thing, but they had a flawed "proof" for saying it that they called "the verification principle". We can discuss that if you like.
Ur over thinkin' the whole thing dude.
BobMcDowell
Level 6
Feb 26, 2018
0
Exactly, you don't need philosophy to understand religion is nonsense. As you say, the first idea of god was the sun and we now know the sun is not a god so the first god idea has been proved nonsense. The same with the thunder god which is just the sound of lightning. The same with the mountain god which is just a volcano. When humans couldn't explain something they created a god for it which I suppose was understandable at the time, now that we know what most things really are I am absolutely amazed that humans still consider god or gods to exist. You don't need philosophy to understand religion is nonsense, you just need to look at where the idea of god and gods came from.
Nope, you're under-thinkin' it, dude. Do you say Zeus is not a god? Read some mythology. Zeus is definitely a god. No we don't worship Zeus, but he's a god, an imaginary god. You don't have to worship Zeus to know that Zeus is a god, a nonexistent god.You don't have to worship the sun to know that the sun is an existent god.
No, you're thinking modern religion is belief in a god. No, it's the illusion of a belief in a god. No god named "God" has been defined. You are like them in that both you and they believe that a god named "God" has been defined. But you're both wrong. None has.
@smoyle If you think modern day religion is belief in a god, you are wrong. It's the illusion of a belief in a god. (Guess I've said that too many times).
@EdwinMcCravy So by your logic, Harry Potter IS a wizard. No, because wizards don't exist (in the HP sense) and neither does Harry Potter. Both have been made up by a humans imagination. Harry Potter, Zeus and ANY other god you care to name do not exist because they have been made up in a humans mind. The sun is not a god either, it's a giant ball of exploding gas, nothing more.
All of this deep thinking, trying to unravel the philosophical meanings of religion is pointless because religion is made up nonsense, required by cave men to make sense of the world.
Reading your piece was giving me an 'out of body,' experience! I was trying to get my mind around what 'the big bang,' would be like and what was IT before the 'big bang?' And what about other Universes? We have no information on where the 'end' is? I Wonder if the answer will ever come? God...that word seems too...simplified, for the Universe-es!
Freedompath
Level 9
Feb 26, 2018
0
Scientists speak of "the big bang" but all they have shown is that the universe is expanding, and accelerating its expansion. So "the big bang" talk is simply that they figure that if things are moving apart, they must have at one time been close together. You're trying to think about "what cannot be thought about". Stop it! It just shows that LANGUAGE TRICKS US! If you're speaking some words and are unable to imagine anything your words could be referring to, then please realize that you're only making sounds with your mouth, not thinking about something.
@EdwinMcCravy yes, abstract is not my strong suit, unless it is colors!
@Freedompath But theres' noting abstract about it.
@EdwinMcCravy it would be, if you lived in my mind!
Dear Edwin, believing in something and worshiping it are two different things. I believe the sun is there, but I don't worship it. It can't do any more for me than the present 'christian god' can prevent mass school shootings evidently. I do wonder what noncognivist is?plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism
Perhaps the distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism collapses as non-cognitivist theories are modified to capture all of the phenomena that cognitivists ...
LenWheeler12
Level 3
Feb 26, 2018
0
But theists don't BELIEVE in a god. They only BELIEVE that they BELIEVE in a god. But they don't! They are simply tricked by meaningless LANGUAGE. They also don't worship anything. They only BELIEVE they worship something. They do indeed have the emotional feelings that they are worshiping something. They go through the same motions as if they were worshiping something, but they are not worshiping anything. That's because they know of nothing that they could be worshiping. It feels to them as though they are worshiping something, but they aren't.
Just try to stop believing that theists have defined a god named "God". They haven't. You and they both falsely believe that they have defined a god named "God". When you get rid of your belief that you share with them, you will understand what modern religion is all about. But as long as you share with them the belief that they have defined a god named "God" you will never understand what modern religion is all about.
Venn diagrams and propositional logic disagree. Given proposition P:
- You either believe that P is true, or you do not believe that P is true
- P is either known to be true, known to be false, or not known
If P equals "some god exists":
- If you believe that P is true, you are a theist, otherwise you are an atheist. No 3rd option.
- If you claim to know P to be true or false, you are a "gnostic" or "strong" theist or atheist; otherwise you are an agnostic theist or atheist. No other option.
Your claim to being a theological noncognitivist explains why you reject P and on which grounds you claim that P is either not known or known to be false. It is perfectly reasonable, but muddying the water that contains the labels gets you nothing.
hlfsousa
Level 6
Feb 26, 2018
2
Your error here is in assuming that just because you have a grammatically correct sequence of words, that you automatically have a proposition to label "P". "The creator of the universe exists" is a grammatically correct sequence of words, but it is not a proposition. It is incoherent because as I showed above, "create" can only be learned to be used in terms of an already existing universe.
@EdwinMcCravy if P is invalid you are justified in rejecting it. It does not mean P cannot be uttered or believed.
@hlfsousa You are confusing "P is invalid" with "P is meaningless". There's a big difference.
@EdwinMcCravy not confusing, but rather asserting.
"God does not exist" is the same as babbling "Smob does not exist". We don't say that.
No it isn't the same. Unless someone is claiming that Smob does exist.
If theists did not claim god existed I would not have a concept of god and as I see no evidence of the theists description of god existing I am an atheist - I don't believe their claims.
If you are claiming that Smob does in fact exist, then I would ask you to describe it and show me the evidence for its existence.
As for creation, how the universe came into being is not a philosophical argument that concerns me. It's here. I might always have been here for all I know. I will leave that question to those with more time on their hands and large research grants.
Uncorrugated
Level 7
Feb 26, 2018
1
Why are you speaking "Smob" as though it were an English word? Please explain. Then we can talk.
@EdwinMcCravy
It was you that introduced the concept of smob. Until your post, I had no concept of smob. It had never entered my psyche, nor had I considered any concept of anything that might be called smob. So up until the point that someone introduced the concept of smob, I agree that it would nonsense to say "I do not believe in smob" However, now that you have introduced me to the word smob, I can say "I do not believe that smob is an accepted word in the English language" My evidence for this is that I have had a look in my dictionary and it's not in there.*
It's the same with theism. There was no mention of god in my early upbringing, it was not a concept that I had any knowledge of. At this point "I do not believe in god is a nonsense statement. When I was introduced to god/s as I started school, I was told the Greek/Roman gods did not exist, but there was this other one that did. I didn't believe them. The evidence they tried to push onto me didn't make sense and I didn't believe what they were trying to sell me. I do not believe that the gods described in the various religions' holy books exist. I am the not one claiming that they do and the burden of proof is theirs. I am an atheist because I do not believe the claims of theists. I don't care what they think they believe in. It could be leprechauns or the easter bunny for all I care - they are wrong. 
- Smob is defined in the urban dictionary as an aggressive overtaking manoeuvre, so I am no longer a non-believer!!! I have seen the light.
@Uncorrugated "Concept of smob"??? There is no concept to label "a concept of smob". Likewise there is no concept to label "a concept of God". To have a concept of X, you must be able to have a mental image of something that X refers to.
OK. Let me try to make this simple.
A few days ago 'smob' had never entered my consciousness. it had no meaning, I had no mental image of anything 'smob'.
Then up you pop in a post saying 'smob does not exist'. At that point YOU introduced a concept of smob. Whether we have the same mental image of smob is irrelevant. As a concept, it now exists as a construct (no physical properties) and we can discuss its meaning. As it happens, as a slang term, smob does exist - just to muddy the water.
God is the same. Theists have a mental image of what god means to them. The fact that I see no evidence for their version of god does not negate the concept.
The fact that every theist has a different concept of god does negate the concept.
The fact that most of them are unable to define properly their concept of god is irrelevant.
The fact that I cannot understand or form a mental image of what they mean when they describe their concept of god, does not mean they have no concept of god.
Thus, the concept of god exists.
I am an atheist because I see no evidence that any concept of god that theists describe, either does exist, or can exist in the reality that I experience .
Philosophical arguments are mostly just concepts, just because you don't understand what others mean by god, does not make it cease to exist. Or I could say that as I have no concept of your argument, it is invalid. Concepts are made up stuff with no physical properties.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.