Who's going to protect the Christians?

[Tallisman]

I contend that we are all atheists; it is simply that I believe in one fewer God than some do. When they understand why they dismiss all the other possible gods, they will understand why I dismiss theirs.

[RootsBooster]

You keep referring me back to one of your post as if it is supposed to mean something.

And you keep ignoring it, even though it applies

I'm not ignoring your repeated explanation I'm dismissing it as meaningless and constantly repeating it won't make it any more meaningful.

dismissing it without explanation or argument, in other words ignoring

How can you form an opinion that something is unknowable without knowing what the something is, it’s a contradiction because to believe its unknowable implies you know something about it

Stop right there and read what you've actually written. Then read it again, then have a think about who's being contradictory.

 

 

 

Only in your mind, to me its meaningless.

Because you refuse to think about it.

I can't be a theist because I can't form a belief that something exists without knowing what the something is.

Fair enough, so you don't have a belief in any gods, you are an atheist

I can't be an atheist because I can’t lack a belief in something without first knowing what the something is.

Of course you can, you don't need to know what something is to lack belief in it, belief is something you have to be convinced of and accept, if you have no reason to be convinced or if there is no definition to accept, you have no belief.

 

I can’t be agnostic because I would have to know something about the something to know that it isn’t knowable.

Do you know how silly you sound when you say that?

Where do you get that from anyway?

 

 

To me God is a meaningless word that describes many things for many different people, and until there is a unified definition any discussion about it is meaningless making me ignostic.

What makes you think there has to be a unified definition or that you have to discuss it to have or not have a belief in it? You don't seem to be able to explain the logic behind this.

[Ryedo40]

The problem I have with that is I might have a belief in it but know it as something other than God, so until someone can accurately describe God I can't know that I lack a belief in it.

 

If I had never heard of a table, I wouldn't lack a belief it because I have seen one and touched one but didn’t know what it was called.

 

But then you wouldn't be ignorant of it, would you. You'd just be ignorant of the term used to define it.

[MrSmith]

But then you wouldn't be ignorant of it, would you. You'd just be ignorant of the term used to define it.

 

Yes that’s right, so until the term God as a coherent definition I can’t lack a belief in it, because I might not be ignorant of the something that is called God.

[PaliRichard]

I didn't think so - it made your point pretty clearly to me.

 

Regarding the comfort thing, yeah, of course & I bear no ill will towards those finding comfort from their faith.

 

My personal feeling on that, though, is that it is rather sad. It is a shame we've evolved so far and yet still have to make up imaginary gods in order to make us feel better about our position in the great scheme of things. I really do believe quite firmly that it is our way of over-riding the survival instinct.

 

Funnily enough, it was the comfort thing which finally convinced me, after a school-life-time of attempted indoctrination, that I didn't believe in any Gods. I was at the funeral of my paternal Grandma which was about 5 years after the funeral of my Grandad. Same church, same clergyman, SAME WORDS. OK, altered a little bit for the gender difference but apart from that it was identical. Suddenly I was ripped from my eternal admiration of the architecture which is always manifest in even the lowliest of churches and I thought: This is all a bunch of gonads isn't it? The whole charade is being played out purely to comfort those there.

 

Since then I've had my fair share of loss and have managed to find comfort each time without needing any magic beings. To be honest, since that day I've found myself more able to talk to others about loss having been freed from the shackles of mumbo jumbo.

 

All just my opinion, of course.

 

Thankyou for your honesty, and of course it's all opinion, but that can be said from every angle of the argument. I'm a non Theistic religious person, you're not religious, someone else is Theistic, it's all opinion and we all reach those opinions by saying the world in a unique way.

 

The joy of debate is that it allows us to explore those other opinions, respect and even learn from them. Well most of us anyway

[MrSmith]

And you keep ignoring it, even though it applies

 

dismissing it without explanation or argument, in other words ignoring

 

Stop right there and read what you've actually written. Then read it again, then have a think about who's being contradictory.

 

 

 

 

Because you refuse to think about it.

 

Fair enough, so you don't have a belief in any gods, you are an atheist

 

Of course you can, you don't need to know what something is to lack belief in it, belief is something you have to be convinced of and accept, if you have no reason to be convinced or if there is no definition to accept, you have no belief.

 

Do you know how silly you sound when you say that?

Where do you get that from anyway?

 

 

 

What makes you think there has to be a unified definition or that you have to discuss it to have or not have a belief in it? You don't seem to be able to explain the logic behind this.

 

I have a belief that many things exist, I've seen them and touched them but don't know what some of the things are called, if you ask me if I believe in God, I wouldn't know until you described God, because God might be one of the things I have seen and touch already. Now if you can’t describe God then I can’t say hey yes I have seen and touched one of those and now I know it to be God so yes I believe. Nor can I say, no I have never seen or touched one of those so I lack a belief that it exists.

 

Ignosticism

 

The reasoning behind this is fairly sound; as God means so many different things to so many different people, there is no one definition of God that can be tested, and because everything is so up in the air, the question isn't even worth considering. Ignosticism is essentially all about the definition of God, and that all religions, and even agnostics and atheists assume too much when taking their philosophical positions.

[RootsBooster]

The problem I have with that is I might have a belief in it but know it as something other than God, so until someone can accurately describe God I can't know that I lack a belief in it.

 

If I had never heard of a table, I wouldn't lack a belief it because I have seen one and touched one but didn’t know what it was called.

If you had never heard of a table, you would lack a belief in it because the belief in this unknown "table" thing would not be there.

 

It doesn't matter that you believe in the rectangular thing with four legs that your coffee was sat on when you first heard the word "table" come up in conversation, you wouldn't (at that time) have a belief in something called "table" until someone said to you "it's that thing right there, with your coffee resting on it". Then, if you were convinced and you accepted what they said to be the truth, you would have a belief in the table.

 

 

Just to recap, a little Mr.1 and Mr.2 discussion to help you with your situation:

 

-Mr1: I can only be an ignostic, because there isn't a unified definition of a god so I can't form a belief

-Mr2: You don't need to have a unified definition to form a belief. A belief is simply something which you are convinced of enough to accept.

 

-Mr1: So how can I form a belief if I don't know the definition of a god?

-Mr2: In terms of a theological god, just look at the existing definitions. If one of them sounds like it might be a god, decide if you are convinced enough to accept it as a god. If so, you believe in that god and you are a theist.

 

-Mr1: But what if none of those definitions convince me?

-Mr2: Then by definition, you do not have a belief in a god and you are an atheist.

 

-Mr1: But what if I already believe in something but I haven't heard it defined as a god?

-Mr2: Then you believe in that thing as it is, you don't believe in it as a god, therefore you don't have a belief in a god, therefore you are an atheist.

 

-Mr1: I must be a theist if I believe in it though?

-Mr2: If it is not your belief that the something is a god (even if it IS a god) then you cannot honestly say that you have a belief in a god. If you cannot honestly say that you have a belief in a god, then you do not have a belief in a god. If you do not have a belief in a god, you are an atheist.

 

 

 

This post supercedes post #181

[MrSmith]

If you had never heard of a table, you would lack a belief in it because the belief in this unknown "table" thing would not be there.

 

 

Of cause it would because I have seen it and touched it, how can I lack a belief in that which I have seen and touched?

[RootsBooster]

Of cause it would because I have seen it and touched it, how can I lack a belief in that which I have seen and touched?

 

You wouldn't lack belief in what you see and touch, you would lack belief in it's identity as a table. Therefore, until you believe it is a table, your belief is not placed in something you call a table.

 

Post #277 explains this

 

...oh wait, that's the post you quoted, except you conveniently cut almost all of it out of the quote.

[MrSmith]

You wouldn't lack belief in what you see and touch, you would lack belief in it's identity as a table. Therefore, until you believe it is a table, your belief is not placed in something you call a table.

 

 

I disagree.