mjw47 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 But your statement is not possible to take at face value because it's nonsensical. It's like saying "I have no knowledge of internal combustion engines, and I don't know if I prefer petrol or diesel fuelled ones." One of your statments must be false - if you don't know about IC engines, then you cannot possibly have an opinion on which fuelling options are best, and if you do have a valid opinion on fuel options, then you must know that they exist. Do you see where the confusion arises? Not a comparable analogy, an engine exists & therefore you could, if you wished ,seek information which would set you straight. God is a concept, a figment of mans imagination which, whilst not precluding the possibility of His existence, does prohibit you obtaining any information that you can trust completely, without question. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say, as agnostics do 'look, in the absence of any absolute proof either way, I choose to reserve judgement on this matter. there are arguments on both sides but non convince, so leave me out of the argument.' Which of course was precisely my position & were it not for posters trying to make themselves look clever- and failing miserably- I would have been off this post ages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 I don't think myself or PaliRich have suggested this is what ignosticism means The only way you can claim ignosticism as a valuable argument is if you are going to dismiss everyone who claims God exists without investigation simply because you claim that indefinability is a prerequisite of non existence. I think I must have interpreted this part (in bold) of PaliRich's post as stating; according to the ignostic position, if something cannot be defined, then it cannot exist. ...which I was talking about, ignosticism assumes that there are no "solid" definitions but every believer will have their own definition of the god or gods they believe in. There is no unified definition, but there doesn't need to be in order to discuss it or speculate on it. Do they though? People may have their own individual interpretations of the term, but I suspect in the vast majority of cases, they're somewhat vague and wistful notions. I'm no expert, but I wouldn't think the ignostic assumes there is no solid definition; it's more that no-one has presented one. Of course, that begs the question, what constitutes a satisfactory definition of the term, god? What if I said, god is an invisible superman with unlimited power, who created the entire universe. Would that count as a solid definition? I don't think so, to me it would seem an extremely vague and lazy definition. We're getting in to the territory of JB's sig; trying to build a description of some intangible, ungraspable, intricate and infinitely complex something or other (that nobody really quite knows what that is); with the most basic and crude building blocks, that are words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 ...which brings us back to the other part of your problem - not only do you not understand that your position of knowing (or not) does not replace a position of believing (or not), you also don't seem to understand the difference between a belief and an absence of belief. Please tell me if you understand the difference between these two statements; A) I do not believe in any gods B) I believe that there are no gods and, no, it's not a case of semantics, they mean two different things. Oh a quiz, I love them, yes blindingly obvious, the first simply means that whilst there may be Gods I, personally, do not believe in them. second, I do not believe there are any Gods. Any more I do enjoy a good quiz ---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 16:35 ---------- Agnostic, coined by TH Huxley: Gnostic: Any more questions? jb Yes mate unknowable? And you interpreted that as being classed as knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Oh a quiz, I love them, yes blindingly obvious, the first simply means that whilst there may be Gods I, personally, do not believe in them. second, I do not believe there are any Gods. Any more I do enjoy a good quiz Okay, I don't believe in any gods, so what does that qualify me as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Okay, I don't believe in any gods, so what does that qualify me as? A bloke who's thought of a way to prolong a senseless argument to fulfill his need to be a smartarse? How I am I doing? It's three out of three isnt it? ---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 16:47 ---------- I consider mjw47's statement makes perfect sense. He is simply stating that he does not know and has an open mind on the matter. Thank harvey19. someone who can accept a straight forward statement at face value, without having to dissect it in order to find a way to create a non existent argument so they can stroke their own ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Not a comparable analogy, an engine exists & therefore you could, if you wished ,seek information which would set you straight. God is a concept, a figment of mans imagination which, whilst not precluding the possibility of His existence, does prohibit you obtaining any information that you can trust completely, without question.. OK... exchange Unicorn for engine, and blue or silver for the horn colour instead of for the fuel type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 ... Yes mate unknowable? And you interpreted that as being classed as knowledge? Do you even know what the word knowledge means? Maybe you should try reading the whole of my post for comprehension. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 A bloke who's thought of a way to prolong a senseless argument to fulfill his need to be a smartarse? How I am I doing? It's three out of three isnt it? ---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 16:47 ---------- Thank harvey19. someone who can accept a straight forward statement at face value, without having to dissect it in order to find a way to create a non existent argument so they can stroke their own ego. That's you getting all personal again you know - you really should stop it if you want to wear the holiest halo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 That's you getting all personal again you know - you really should stop it if you want to wear the holiest halo... Now you're teasing me aren't you Obelix? You know very well I don't believe in saints, not until they are proved to me. So no, not looking for any halo. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I simply couldn't resist it. You know you'd have done the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Now you're teasing me aren't you Obelix? You know very well I don't believe in saints, not until they are proved to me. So no, not looking for any halo. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, I simply couldn't resist it. You know you'd have done the same I hate to shatter your illusions but you certainly are not hurting my feelings, in fact you are providing entertainment far beyond the norm. I would like to continue with this but I fear I have to go, as an appontment beckons. Do answer the unicorn analogy though if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.