janie48 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 On the post ' atheist worse nightmare '.. I suggested I was only agnostic and not agnostic atheist but as atheist was set as a definition, people were saying I was atheist or agnostic atheist but after researching what I was doing all night I came to atheist denial, ( after many hours) which to me and I'm only suggesting me, it gave me answers so I realised I wasent agnostic or ignostic or atheist or agnostic atheist, i was infact atheist denial, without knowing I was Researching all night. Take a break and get some sleep,then when you wake up, you may find yourself back in the position that was better for you. And i don't mean that unkindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 You could take something from " god is all powerful" if you take god as the universe and so with no beginning, they is no end Would you care to rephrase that so it makes sense. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Is it just me or does anyone get the impression it isn't only theists that are confused. My opinion on theists has been changed, as they say there is one or more god, they do not say that god is in human form or god is man like or has intelligence, they allow the universe itself to be defined as god though atheist don't, they say you have little belief in god which shows that atheist to me doesn't really exist. .. You have little belief but don't believe doesn't make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 How many secretly think theists are weird, I was one of them because I was stuck with the ignorant term as atheist though I have now found out I define myself as atheist in denial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Ok, fair enough, but my difficulty is that when they say 'you can't know God - only his signs' (or similar) that the ignostic position doesn't allow for the testing of that evidence because you're sat around waiting for a definition. Being ignostic is no deterrent to pursing other lines of research it's is simply a philosophical position on the concept of God. I'm quite happy to research Biblical accuracy or prophecies or whatever. One must also remember that the Bible is not evidence for God. my criteria is taking the evidence they give for their position (for example - a common one - we know God exists because he gave us signs that science has since verified which the people of time couldn't have known - or another one, these predictions came true) is to test that evidence. Proving the signs and prophecies doesn't prove God. Indeed it can't as there is a logical disconnect between the two. If we find that the explanation they give doesn't stand up, we can then assume that their idea of what God is capable of is flawed, if their whole idea of what he is happens to be flawed, then we can assume it doesn't exist. Secondary characteristics are pretty meaningless when you have nothing to pin them on. I'm not sure if I'd worded that right, I'm trying to do a million things at once so I hope you get my point? Yeah, I think so. OK, that was my misunderstanding, I thought you meant a specifically intelligent alien lifeform. Sorry, I hold my hands up to completely misunderstanding that We could probably come up with a definition for intelligent alien life, the problems would arise in not only defining intelligence but in recognizing it when we see it. Not that it really matters, my argument is that everything that exists can be objectively defined, it doesn't follow that we can necessarily define at this point. I'm sure alien intelligences are quite capable of defining themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Trying to resist muddying the waters of this already very murky thread but my inner troll just won't let me... Have at you... jb ETA: Have we agreed yet whether or not fideism is a valid epistemological theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Trying to resist muddying the waters of this already very murky thread but my inner troll just won't let me... Have at you... jb Interesting (only reading first paragraph though). How would Noncognitivism differ from Ignosticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Would you care to rephrase that so it makes sense. jb Ok as you stay atheist, it is impossible for me to properly rephrase it so you understand though I will attempt again to try and make it abit clearer. You say you cant take a meaning from God is all powerful, but if you just forget the word god for a second and just think the god as all the universe and that you don't have an answer to what was here before the universe, you can take it as god is the universe and there for their was no beginning so there possibly can not be an end, so making " god" is all powerful. But to do this you have to take god as a mere expression as can anyone argue against the fact that god is man made?? .. Though sayin this still confuses me as we all think something can not come from nothing.. But when I say the universe had no beginning, im only talking about the empty space as you can not destroy empty space can you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Trying to resist muddying the waters of this already very murky thread but my inner troll just won't let me... Have at you... jb ETA: Have we agreed yet whether or not fideism is a valid epistemological theory? No one is trolling, when you say that, what your really saying is atheism can not be challenged, but why not... Atheists challenge theists so why can't atheist be challenged by a atheist in denial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Interesting (only reading first paragraph though). How would Noncognitivism differ from Ignosticism? There really isn't a great deal of difference. Discribing oneself as ignostic is a way of saying that you cannot describe yourself as atheist/theist as the terms have no meaning until such time as a definition of God is presented. In simple terms a TCN (and ignostic) hold the view that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. It follows that theist, and consequently atheist are also meaningless terms. That leaves the only rational position as ignostic. jb God: Some unknowable being that possess some unknowable qualities in an unknowable way. Theist: Someone who believes in an unknowable being with unknowable qualities. Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in an unknowable being with unknowable qualities. Agnostic atheist: Someone who lacks belief an unknowable being with unknowable qualities in which is not possible to know anything about. :loopy: Agnostic theist:Someone who believes an unknowable being with unknowable qualities in which is not possible to know anything about. :loopy: Ignostic: Someone who thinks all of the above are a little bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.