Agnostic.com

14 4

LINK Ignosticism

Any of you have read about this concept? For me is what better defines my relation with "supernatural"
For a REALLY BRIEF SUMMARY (the link is there for a more deep dive).

Atheist says that the answer to the existence question is NO, for any given god. The claim is false.

Agnostic would say that the answer for the question about existence is impossible to know by definition because the gods are non falsifiable, so why bother trying. The claim is impossible to be verified.

Ignostic would ask you to define this entity that you are asking about existence, and then examen the holes and self contradictions in the definition thus concluding that the question has no meaning because the person making the question can't even decide what he/she is asking. The claim does not exist/does not make sense.

All the 3 can lead to any point in the anti-theist/apatheist spectrum (destroy all religions or "meh... I don't care" )

The same way agnosticism give a step back from atheism and says that you can't answer an impossible question thus believing is irrelevant. Ignosticism give a step back over agnosticism and says that you can't even start evaluating because the question itself is meaningless.

So for me to be "promoted" to agnostic, first someone needs to come up with a concept of god that is logically consistent.
Then for me to be "promoted" to atheist there must be a way to test the existence of this god (even if it is someway that are not technologically viable and might be only done in the future).

In the end is just philosophical shenanigans that have no implications on the day to day life where I "act as if there is no god".

What are your opinions about it?

Pedrohbds 7 Oct 1
Share

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

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

As an atheist my answer to the question "is there a god?" is: "I see no reason to think any exist; and, therefore, I do not believe any do."

If I say affirmatively "there are no gods" then it is up to me to prove it. Just as if someone claims there is a god, or are gods, it is up to them to prove it--or at least prove a god is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. And science shows us just the opposite--no god is necessary and there is no need to insert one--or more, so why insert any (especially one that involves itself in human affairs)?

A negative cannot be proven, what you can say is that to this point you have seen no evidence for a god, not can you find a reason one would exist. It is not needed to get the Universe to the point it has not reached.

Your position is fair. And agnostics or ignostics for all practical purposes follow the same line.
Agnosticism or ignosticism only differ in the logical/philosophical way.
There will never be any evidence pro or against a claim that is not falsifiable, becaus ethat is the definition of a non falsifiable argument.
So saying you are an agnostic does not mean simply "I don't know". It means " it is impossible to know, thus it is an useless discussion".

Ignostic goes one step ahead. "I can't even look for evidence or evaluate it becaus ethe question itself makes no sense as you can't properly define the concept god"
By not defining the concept anything and nothing is the god, depending what the person wants.
All powerfull, control everything in the minimum details. But hunger and war is not his fault (for example of a contradicition very common)

@dalefvictor I cannot ask for evidence because I do not know what evidence it would take to convince me that there is a god, especially an interactive one.

I say that I have no reason to believe any gods exist because science shows us that no god is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. It does not show us that there is no god, or cannot be a god--only that one is not needed.

I refer to Occam's Razor; and the simplest answer is that potential energy/energy has always existed. Energy becomes matter (sometimes that matter becomes life and even self-aware life) and matter returns to an energy state.

There is no reason to insert a creator god, or a universal consciousness, with will/volition; and to give it human attributes only complicates things further-so why insert one? I find no reason to.

1

As an Agnostic I summarize my position as:
"I don't know and I don't care."

4

I am a radical atheist, and I have been one since my teenage years. I don't care about definitions or concepts by now.

5

meh... I don't care

5

And who really cares, all that is important at the moment is; what will I have for breakfast today, will it be porridge or bacon and eggs?

Is that a choice? It's only porridge if you're out of bacon and eggs 😂

Not exactly sure, but now I kind of would like a country fried steak scrambled eggs and home fries.

@oldFloyd piss off, you're making me hungry 😄

@Cyklone yeah, I know how that feels. 😉

2

What a load of crap! You lost me at "the claim is false" without giving any evidence to support such bullshit.

Really? I am not making any claim there, just discussing concepts. How can I show an evidence for the concept of claim?

@Pedrohbds "Atheist says that the answer to the existence question is NO, for any given god. The claim is false." I call bullshit

@Mofo1953

Well, what part of this sentence is wrong?
In which claim are you calling bulshit?
Do atheists think the claim of the existence of a god is true?
Do atheists answer the question about existence with yes?
What is the bulshit?
Seems to me that you are reading the sentence "The claim is false" as an isolated sentence and not in the context that it is inserted.
See I am not talking about the claim itself, I am talking about the opinion of a group on the claim.

It is like I say "For christians, god exists" and then you attack me saying that god does not exist, when the sentence is not talking about my opinion, but about some other group opinion.

@Pedrohbds this part: "Really? I am not making any claim there, just discussing concepts." Because You did ake that unsubstantiated claim. Be a man and own your crap dude.

@Mofo1953 what claim? that atheists don't believe in the existence of god? Because that is the only information that I use in the sentence you copied.
Tell me what claim, just because the word claim is there does not mean that I made a claim.
"The claim" in my text means "existence of some god".

That is why I don't understand what are you talking, why I lost you in "the claim is false"? am telling that atheists tells that the claim that god exist is false.
See I am not saying god exist ot not. I am just reporting what atheists say. Is this wrong? Do atheists accept the claim that god exists?

And why do you have this pathological necessity to end all answers with some offensive statement? Get out of the war dude, relax, i am not your enemy. You probably just misread some sentence and now is making a big case of it.

@Pedrohbds right, you don't do crap, it is not you, it's others. You wrote claim but that is not a claim. Brilliant dude. Do you work for the Trump administration? You are ripe for its alternative reality.

@Mofo1953 so tell me what was the claim, talk to me instead of keeping repeating the same thing without atb last considering what i am saying.
Calm down this will to fight

@Pedrohbds it's up there in black and white, you wrote it. you keep repeating the same bullshit that I am angry or upset, you probably mistake my raw language as wanting to fight, that is just asinine.

@Mofo1953 i write something about a claim, you said that is bulshit and quoted me saying that atheists says that the claim of gods existence is false.
So iyour opinion is: that saying that atheists think that the claim that God exist is false is bulshit?
Because the thing that you quoted is saying this.

@Pedrohbds give it a rest already, you know what you wrote and trying to rationalize the idiotic stuff you wrote to somehow validate your lack of sense is pathetic and even digs you deeper in the shit you want to avoid, but it is too late, own your bullshit..

@Mofo1953 at this point you are a troll or too dumb to read and understand a build up of an argument.
A typical person that can't understand an information that is build up on more than a sentence.
Your incapacity to tell me what is the error and resort to just name calling when i make a simple question shows that you have nothing but a reading .

3

Many claims do not make sense. I see people every day trying to make up stuff just so they can believe what they want to.

That is it, you can create many claims with or without meaning. The point of Ignosticism is saying that asking about existence of something that makes no sense has no meaning.

3

Do you have any knowledge that any gods exist? Do you believe in any gods?

Define god and then I can start thinking if I have some knowledge or evidence

@Pedrohbds what a WEASEL reply!

@Pedrohbds So, which of the well over 30+ million Gods, Goddesses/Supreme Deities recorded throughout human history would you like 'defined?'

@Triphid that is the point of ignosticism, out of those (insert any big number here) gods proposed or they are easily proven false (there is no gods palace on the top of mount Olympus) so end of discussion, or the definition of the god doesn't even make sense, so if a definition does not make sense, why would one bother with existence or not when the definition is self contradictory?

This is the point of ignosticism, if you can't come up with a viable definition, you can't even ask if it exists because the question has no meaning.

@Pedrohbds
Supreme being or creator gods. Do you have any knowledge? Do you believe in any god(s)?

@xenoview no

@Pedrohbds But, does not the 'Holey Babble' TRY hard to give many and varied descriptions of its God?
Did not each of the ancient systems of belief also have very distinct descriptions of all of their Deities?

@Triphid but do they really have a valid concept? Does this concept is really at list internally consistent without self contradictions?
This is the ignostiv point. It is not about believing, is about the theists can't even give me a concept that is viable. That does not bring self contradiction.
It is like i ask you if you believe in the parallel lines that cross in an euclidian space.
Os life i ask if you believe that someone found a 1 that equals to 2.

@Pedrohbds Agnostic, Atheist, Ignostic or what ever you wish to call us and others are merely words and labels are they not?
As was once written, "A rose is a Rose by any other name it will still smell the same," ergo, imo, you are merely using pedantry as a tool to promote your own personal stance.

@Pedrohbds
If you answer no to both questions then you are an atheist also.

@Triphid I was always fond of Baal, myself. And ISIS, in a different life.....Zeus however was a Playah, and nasty......

@xenoview depends on the definition, but for all practical purposes yes. They are different only when you go on the logical precision of the discusion. Not on the "how you act".

2

And people continue to add unneeded things.

6

How about can I just be a person? Free of "philosophical" claptrap? And especially, free of labels?

it is not about the label, it is about the ideas, the label is just a name to summarize that. Immagine if you are from Spain for example and instead of having a name for it you must describe the place you are from, would not be practical...

@Pedrohbds I would just sayEurope if i couldn't say Spain, and BTW Spain has very different sub-areas, so "Spain" really wouldn't say much.

@AnneWimsey that is the point, you name things to make it easy, imagine if you have to describe everything instead of just giving a name. Seems that the intent of the post completely lost you.

@Pedrohbds I am atheist. Period. Anything else IMO is mealy-mouthed waffling. Hedging yer bets, so to speak. Despite your totally uncalled for snide-ness, nothing on here is"lost"on me, it sounds like you are storing up apologies/misdirection in case St. Pete questions you, and practicing your shuffle on me.
If I actually run into St Pete, or his boss, i have a bunch of pointed questions I badly want answers to, like Biafra Babies, and predatory pedophiles.......you?

@AnneWimsey

@Pedrohbds except your post doesn't have a point, except boring semantics...i like to give back what I am given.......

@TheMiddleWay ummmm, @MiddleWay is a declared Believer......

@TheMiddleWay but according to the OP, that isn't possible.....

@TheMiddleWay you try to support him but undercut him......?

@AnneWimsey

Yes the post is about meaning, is about a concept and logic, is not about existence or believing... That is why I am saying you missed the point.

you come to the section called Philosophy & Meaning and complain that the discussion is to philosophical and semantic...

@Pedrohbds there is healthy debate, and there is pedantic BS

0

You either believe in something or you don't, and if you do, the truths you seek are subjective, and if you don't those truths are also subjective. All supernatural things are subjective because no one else can experience these things as you do, therefore unprovable and not real to the general population, they are dealing with their own experiences and discovering their own subjective truths.
For me, what I believe to be true is only true for me, and what I think is real is only real to me, I will investigate things and find out about things as much as I can, but then again everything I find or discover is subjective to my interpretation of the subject matter. Therefore I am as every one of us here is defined by our own interpretations and ideas and are of course subjective, that is, we can change our thoughts on the matter and ideas as new evidence comes forth, and even then that evidence is subjective to us.

But is worthy. Or to get out of the subjectivety.

Can you hope to find anything when investigating a concept that has no internal coherence or full of self contradictions. From the logical perspective?

@Pedrohbds We'll never know. We just live and deal with what we find. And hope for the best. And even that in and of its self seems a little subjective.

3

Hey kids, tell you what, lets complicate what we call ourselves EVEN MORE, whoop de do.

Bollocks!

I have no reason to believe in a god ATHEIST

I choose to believe in a god THEIST

THAT IT that is all you need, call yourself what ever you like, but you ARE one or the other, everything else is mental masturbation.

it is not about the label, it is about the idea. Is more a discussion about meaning applied to religion. As I say, philosophical and logical shenanigans if you are into it.

4

Way too much ado about what label one should be called.
I haven't to date seen, heard, or read anything that confirms, at least to me, that some God, or Gods exist.
I can't 100% prove there isn't such a thing. But most importantly. I really don't care to.
I'm sure others would agree that needing a label for one who doesn't collect stamps, have to call them a 'non-stamp collector', is just silly.
JMHO.

I cannot (nor can anyone) prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, I guess I’m pastaatheist but that’s irrelevant because pastafarians don’t try to make laws or govern society.

2

I've been an ignostic Episcopalian for a decade or so, works for me. If I ever hear a definition of "god" that makes sense, I'll revisit the issue.

Well, don't go holding your breath waiting for such a definition to happen please.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:539443
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.