barleycorn Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 What makes you think people have to have to agree on the definitions of their gods? Wouldn't that also mean that there can only be one single god? If someone has a definition of their god and they believe in that god, how can they be ignostic? Indeed. Although I suspect that Maxismith will hold that position simply to be antagonistic and drag a thread out across 100 pages of mindless drivel. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 <snipped ever so slightly, because I'm about to leave work> Gnosticism relates to knowledge Gnostic: It is possible to know that God exists Agnostic: It is not possible to know whether or not God exists Ignostic: Tell me what you mean by God first Theism relates to belief Theist: Believes in God Atheist: Lacks belief in God Antitheist: Believes there is no God. jb Seems to me that you can be an ignostic atheist ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 17:13 ---------- Indeed. Although I suspect that Maxismith will hold that position simply to be antagonistic and drag a thread out across 100 pages of mindless drivel. jb No doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 What makes you think people have to have to agree on the definitions of their gods? Wouldn't that also mean that there can only be one single god? Good point which I addressed above. The word theist is meaningless if my definition of God differs from their definition, if they claim to believe in God and my understanding of God is a pink elephant I would assume they believe in pink elephants. This is why in any discussion about God there as to be an agreed definition. ---------- Post added 23-04-2013 at 17:25 ---------- If someone has a definition of their god and they believe in that god, how can they be ignostic? If they have no definition of the God I am talking about how can they be anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Let a theological Definition of God = DoG 1. DoG is defined as either via negation or as secondary/relational attributes. 2. DoGs defined either negatively or as secondary/relational properties are meaningless. 3. DoGs are therefore meaningless (Cut shrt for fear of tedium) How can a definition of God be meaningless if the belief in that God brings meaning to someones life? That in itself negates the argument. Your whole argument relies on the 'form' of God on the intellectual level. Almost every Theist claims God cannot be touched on this level but can only be known either via his 1, 'handiwork' - we can test this, we can look at the evidence put forward by the religious themselves, for example 'The Quran is the perfect work of God', 'The Bible says the Earth is 'x' number of years old' etc, we can test these propositions scientifically, and thus, we can test the claim for God. 2, Presence, this is usually describes as something along the lines of the transformative power recevied when you 'Give yourself to God' - we can look at this scientifically and say many people have transformative experiences, not all of them will be believers in God - those that are will belong to different religions - we can do 'blind' tests on people to try to recreate the euphoric experiences of those who feel 'touched by God'. But Ignostics don't accept these as valid tests because they don't encompass a 'one size fits all' God that everyone agrees on. The main focus of Ignosticism is that 'God can't be defined', well here you go from thefreedictionary.com 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. from oxforddictionaries.com 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2 (god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god Plenty of definitions there for you to go at, many of which can easily be tested. So are you a Theist or an Atheist? I'm sorry for being short but the Ignostic position just comes accross as a bunch of smart bums sat around trying to be different, it simply has no merit - if you don't think God can't be defined simply don't talk about God - it's a philosophical nonsense which serves no other purpose than to let those who apply the term to themselves sit around and pat themselves on the back for being 'clever'. We can (and have) tested almost all the 'proof' people claim is there for God, scientifically speaking God probably doesn't exist - philosophically there are a hundred and one different arguments on either side (I've been involved in a hundred and two). In short - from the scientific perspective God more than likely doesn't exist, from the philosophical perspective you can say just about anything you want - but the very idea of the ignostic position is just as barmy as claiming you can define God itself, it's a non argument trying to be an argument - it's formless, shapeless and cannot be touched - does that mean we can be Ignostic Ignostics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Good point which I addressed above. You didn't address it, you said something different to your original statement. This.... Yes, I could have a debate with one group that define God one way and be a theist. Then have another debate with a different definition and be atheist. With another group and another definition I could be a agnostic. I can be anything depending on the definition being used, so until everyone, everywhere agrees on the definition of God its best to stick to ignostic. ..is quite different to this... The term atheist, theist and all the other terms that describe someone’ belief or lack of belief in God are all meaningless until there is a coherent and agreed definition of God. Until that time everyone is ignostic. The word theist is meaningless if my definition of God differs from their definition, if they claim to believe in God and my understanding of God is a pink elephant I would assume they believe in pink elephants. This is why in any discussion about God there as to be an agreed definition. So if their definition of the God they believe in is different to your definition of the God you believe in, they aren't a theist? If they have no definition of the God I am talking about how can they be anything else? Aside from your response not answering my question, is it supposed to make any sense? If someone doesn't have a definition of your God, they can be anything else precisely because not having a definition of your God doesn't prevent them from being anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So if their definition of the God they believe in is different to your definition of the God you believe in, they aren't a theist? It makes a discussion about God meaningless unless we are both talking about the same think. Aside from your response not answering my question, is it supposed to make any sense? It makes sense to me, and it highlights how pointless a discussion about God is if the people discussing God have no idea how the other people define God. If someone doesn't have a definition of your God, they can be anything else precisely because not having a definition of your God doesn't prevent them from being anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I thought you'd anti-peaked on the same sex marriage thread Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus, you appear to be outdoing yourself on this one though. If discussion with you is pointless does that make me "Ig-SmithMaximus" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I thought you'd anti-peaked on the same sex marriage thread Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus, you appear to be outdoing yourself on this one though. If discussion with you is pointless does that make me "Ig-SmithMaximus" ? ................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Sorry Barley...I nodded off about 4 seconds into the first post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Sorry Barley...I nodded off about 4 seconds into the first post! You're not kidding, Chumbawamba! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.