Atheism & Religious Beliefs

[barleycorn]

I'll deal with one part at a time, firstly how do we know, really know what anything is without having an abstract perception of it? If you've never seen a flag blowing in the wind and you came upon one you wouldn't know it was a flag, much less what country it represents.

Well, that would depend if a flag had ever been described to you. Now I could describe them as:

They are different from country to country

They inspire national pride

... both of which describe attributes of a flag but tell me nothing about the nature of a flag that allows it do those things. So, if this was all I had to go on and I saw a flag fluttering in the breeze I would not be able to ascribe what I was seeing with the definition of flags.

However, if upon learning of the above attributes I then asked what properties does a flag possess that give it those attributes I may be told:

They are made of cloth fabric.

They are generally of >insert actual size< size.

They can be mounted on poles or hung by the edge.

They are used to symbolise national identity through means of different colours and designs.

So, with these descriptors in hand and coming across my first flag I would have a pretty good chance of identifying it as such.

The difference between the two different types of descriptors is that one allows me to identify a flag as a flag whereas the other does not.

Likewise if you don't have any idea of what the God is how can you form a philosophical position that you can't possibly know what God is. Its a self defeating position before its even began.

Did you really mean to write this, it certainly isn't ignosticism. If you don't have any idea what God is how can you form a philosophical position of any kind regarding its existence?

Secondly we can measure the evidence provided by those who do believe in God. You don't need to be able to define it to recognise its attributes.

And its attributes are?

I didn't have a clue about the definition of air when I was a child but I could describe certain attributes of it. Non definability is not a pre requisite for non existence.

Air is existant and I betting you could have even provided some primary attributes of it. Can the same be said for God?

Likewise thrusts may say 'the Qur'an is evidence for God' so we can look at that, measure it with testable evidence and say that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore we can discount that particular version of 'God', whilest we have believers providing us with 'evidemce' of God we have a yardstick to go by.

In what way is the Quran evidence for God?

 

jb

ETA: Missed this bit

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 won't dismiss anyone who claims God exists without investigation. My first step would be to ask them what they mean when they say God, I would ask what properties does your God possess. If they cannot answer these questions then I would dismiss them, if they could I would then investigate further.

 

jb

[Waldo]

I think Roots and Richard, perhaps you both misunderstand the ignostic position (or perhaps I do).

 

It doesn't say, that because there is no clear definition of god, it follows, that such a thing cannot exist. The crux of ignositicism (to my understanding), is that that debate on the matter of god, is pointless and futile, without first arriving at a solid definition.

 

I am yet to hear a solid definition. If there was a solid definition of god, then I think the ignostic would say, okay, now let's not debate the validity of that thing.

 

Of course, it's not just the god concept; but flags also (and everything else), where we have on the one hand a label or name for a thing (construct or thought form or word we hold in out minds), and on the other, the thing itself. The relationship between the two, is a quandary in itself; where does the one end and the other begin? Where does the human mind end, and the universe begin? Where is the dividing line between the two?

[esme]

Mod Note

 

Posts removed for insulting other users, keep it civil please.

[barleycorn]

Ignosticism is flawed because it assumes that as there are is no unified definition of god, speculation is pointless.

The problem with that is that every god which is believed in, has a definition. The definitions vary greatly between each believer, but each believer has their own definition of their god.

Your understanding of ignosticism is flawed. A unified definition is not a requirement.

I've found that most people who play the ignosticism card are just agnostic atheists who don't want to be labelled as such and like to think they are above the subject.

I have a deep interest in the subject. However, despite many, many, requests I am still wait for a believer to give me a coherent description of their God.

 

jb

[mjw47]

You continue to miss the point like it's a long, lost relative. You can believe what you want to belive about god and religion - no problem. But when you are factually incorrect, as you are regarding terms of reference, you continue to be so whether you accept it or not.

 

Dismissing the philosophy of religion as theological pedantry and semantics is, sadly, both arrogant and ignorant.

 

I now notice that you are claiming to be amusing yourself and having a bit of a wind up as many have before once they realised the waters are, indeed, deeper than they first perceived but cannot admit they were mistaken.

 

That being the case I will leave you to amuse yourself.

 

Yes I'm the only one on here not taking this deadly serious:rolleyes: I am not dismissing the philosophy of religion as theological pedantry, where did I say I was? I was calling some of the posters on here theological pedants.

There have been many wonderful men & women who had amazing intelligence & who believed in & wrote about God, including Thomas Aquinas who I referred to before.

There have also of course, been many men & women of equal intellect who have taken the opposite view leaving us poor mediocrities back where we started.

 

My view is very simple, although people appear to be having enormous trouble grasping it.

No one on Earth, no matter what they may claim, can, at this moment PROVE beyond any doubt the existence OR the non existence of God.

Therefore the position of accepting NOT KNOWING either way seems, to me ,to be the only sensible position to adopt.

 

All else is speculation. As I have no interest in speculating on a subject which I will never know the answer to I consider it a complete waste of time & energy.

[barleycorn]

I think Roots and Richard, perhaps you both misunderstand the ignostic position (or perhaps I do).

 

It doesn't say, that because there is no clear definition of god, it follows, that such a thing cannot exist. The crux of ignositicism (to my understanding), is that that debate on the matter of god, is pointless and futile, without first arriving at a solid definition.

 

I am yet to hear a solid definition. If there was a solid definition of god, then I think the ignostic would say, okay, now let's not debate the validity of that thing.

That is indeed the ignostic position. Before you can debate the existence of something you kind of have to know what it is your debating. If I came on here and started a thread entitle 'Do you believe in XRSHjsfdis' the debate wouldn't get very far until I had told people what XRSHjsfdis is. The problem with debating God is that people tend to assume there MUST be something meaningful to debate by simple virtue of its deep entrenchment into our society, history, emotions, imagination and thoughts.

 

Of course, it's not just the god concept; but flags also (and everything else), where we have on the one hand a label or name for a thing (construct or thought form or word we hold in out minds), and on the other, the thing itself. The relationship between the two, is a quandary in itself; where does the one end and the other begin? Where does the human mind end, and the universe begin? Where is the dividing line between the two?

See my sig...

 

jb

[RootsBooster]

I think Roots and Richard, perhaps you both misunderstand the ignostic position (or perhaps I do).

 

It doesn't say, that because there is no clear definition of god, it follows, that such a thing cannot exist.

I don't think myself or PaliRich have suggested this is what ignosticism means

The crux of ignositicism (to my understanding), is that that debate on the matter of god, is pointless and futile, without first arriving at a solid definition.

...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.

[barleycorn]

Yes I'm the only one on here not taking this deadly serious:rolleyes: I am not dismissing the philosophy of religion as theological pedantry, where did I say I was? I was calling some of the posters on here theological pedants.

There have been many wonderful men & women who had amazing intelligence & who believed in & wrote about God, including Thomas Aquinas who I referred to before.

There have also of course, been many men & women of equal intellect who have taken the opposite view leaving us poor mediocrities back where we started.

 

My view is very simple, although people appear to be having enormous trouble grasping it.

No one on Earth, no matter what they may claim, can, at this moment PROVE beyond any doubt the existence OR the non existence of God.

Therefore the position of accepting NOT KNOWING either way seems, to me ,to be the only sensible position to adopt.

 

All else is speculation. As I have no interest in speculating on a subject which I will never know the answer to I consider it a complete waste of time & energy.

 

For the like gagillionth time knowledge =/= belief. As Roots so eloquently said up thread, he believes his dog is at home but he doesn't know it. So he is agnostic canisestdomist.

 

jb

[RootsBooster]

Your understanding of ignosticism is flawed. A unified definition is not a requirement.

My apologies, I'm left with this "unified definition" concept beaten in to my mind from the hundreds of posts Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus made when he was banging on about it for so long

I have a deep interest in the subject. However, despite many, many, requests I am still wait for a believer to give me a coherent description of their God.

 

jb

I've found every believer has a definition of their god (when pursued on the subject), I suppose it depends what you mean by coherent though.

[barleycorn]

I don't think myself or PaliRich have suggested this is what ignosticism means

 

...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.

 

Nope, no requirement for a unified definition. I have on here many times (and on other forums many times) asked for a definition from a believer and have yet to receive one. I am perfectly happy to discus any one believers definition of their God.

 

jb