Why do you call yourself an Atheist?

[Demojen]

Quote from Socrates
Belief in the, purest sense, requires no justification when it comes claims that are not about knowledge.

This response seems to be rooted in the previous statement made by Hacknslash.

Your use of agnosticism is wrong. It has nothing to do with belief in god, but is a position concerning the possibility of knowledge (not the possession of it).

In which Hacknslash clearly broke down the logic in the following paragraph

You are using agnosticism to say 'I don't know' which is redundant and absurd. Nobody knows whether or not a deity exists (though many really fuckwitted people convince themselves that they do), so to even have such a word would be absurd. Agnosticism is the position that knowledge is not possible.

If that weren't clear enough, to spell it out...saying "I don't know that I don't know that I don't know that I don't know" is redundant and means the same thing as saying "I don't know" means agnostic. Agnostic means "I can't know and neither can you"

Atheists have no belief in an existing deity, because it is unnecessary

Necessary to what?
The belief, or an existing deity?

Atheist: god does not exist necessarily
Theist: god exists necessarily

Atheism has less to do with beliefs and more to do with what position you take.

Atheist: I do not believe in the existence of god that is not supported with empirical evidence.
Theist: I believe in the existence of god that is not supported with empirical evidence.

Theism is a claim to knowledge (god exists), while Atheism is not a claim to knowledge (I do not believe) and agnosticism is a claim to knowledge (You can't know).

 

[Blood Wraith]

Atheism is an attribute. In the cosmic class file humans have boolean theist. Atheists just have that bool at 0 instead of 1. :ugeek:

If we're seriously going to boil the question down to a boolean variable, then technically igtheists would be 0 as well, considering how the variable is just a true/false statement about whether or not the being in question is a theist, and igtheists by definition reject theism in its current forms (to the extent of the variations of theism that the igtheist in question is aware of).

"Igtheism" in so much as it's description as I understand it is (and correct me if I'm wrong, going based on the information here and the wiki article):

Ignosticism/igtheism is a theological viewpoint, which states that a coherent definition must be applied before a question can be discussed. It asserts that atheism and agnosticism are theological viewpoints which presuppose too much about god.

Yes, because in order to uphold either of those stances, you have to do so in relation to a specific concept of god that is being given or in relation to the concept of god in general (thus entailing all possible forms of gods). An igtheist stresses that upholding such standards without properly assessing all possible forms of god is intellectually dishonest and doesn't make the distinction between which gods can be verified and which cannot, and by lumping them all together in one category or by assuming that one specific concept of god being unverifiable makes all other possible gods unverifiable by association is not a proper way to evaluate other theological claims. Rather, the igtheist examines other theological claims on a case by case basis and demands a definition of god per that specific theological stance that can be evaluated as such.

An example of one such argument is to say that because the definition of YHWH provided by the Bible is inconsistent, and the veracity of the bible is unverifiable, that it is undefined, and therefore the question is meaningless and cannot be answered.

Yes, the question is meaningless and cannot be answered per that definition. Were it brought to light that the Bible has been vindicated in a historical context, and all the miracles performed were shown to have actually occurred (which would be a miracle in its own right), and the definition of YHWH were revamped so as to allow falsifiability for the sake of empirically determining whether or not this god exists in actuality, and narrowed it down to a specific sect or resulted in the creation of one that didn't already exist that accounts for all relevant findings, then that'd throw igtheism as a stance right out the window. But of course this would apply to anything that isn't the specific sect of Christianity that was vindicated in this scenario.

But the point that I'm making here is that igtheism is a stance that one takes in relation to known forms of theism that the igtheist in question has encountered. It doesn't take a general stance towards all of theology in general, because that would imply that the igtheist is aware of all possible variants of theology -and by extension- all possible variants of god. As such, the igtheist open to any new forms of theism, provided that they meet the following critera in relation to the god involved in whatever particular variant of theism is being put forth:

The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.

Which brings me to why I have no idea how this conclusion could have come about from the definition of igtheism:

However, because it is a theological position, it has already failed. To truly be "ignostic" as it would assert, it must stand separate of theology. If we take it separate of theology, then, as such it is the ultimate noncommittal and can be used to reject anything as meaningless.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to get at with this objection to igtheism as a theological stance, as I don't understand why it is that igtheism must stand separate from theology given that by definition alone it is a theological stance towards the veracity of what other theological stances assert, and it is executed on a case by case basis. As I stated in my last post, it is limited to theological claims, so I don't see how it must be extricated from all of theology.

Theism has a solid definition. For those who somehow can't grasp this, it is:

A morbid condition characterized by headache, sleeplessness, and palpitation of the heart, caused by excessive tea-drinking.

that made me laugh and I had to share. Sorry the actual, pertinent definition is

a. gen. Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism.
b. Belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism; = MONOTHEISM.
c. Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation: = DEISM.
d. esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

That is a well wrought and rigorous definition. It is, you might even say, a coherent definition of what is meant by "theism."

Now you might say instead that the stance isn't about the definition of theism(though it is, by rejecting the definition of theism as it does) and instead that it is about the definition of god.

It's about both the definition of theism and god. Theism is entirely dependent upon the concept of god by virtue of definition alone, and without it the term is meaningless. The entire position is built around the concept of god, so dismantling it at the very root of the stance doesn't suddenly turn it into a dichotomous question as to whether or not it's more about theism or god. To suggest that implies that the two are not directly related, and I can't remember the last time I ran into a theist that didn't have god as the basis of their theological position. By rejecting whatever conception of god they are putting forth for their specific theistic stance, you are rejecting their theistic stance by extension.

I would retort that god is coherently defined, as well. Not YHWH or any specific deity, but the concept of a god IS coherently and rigorously defined, as such:

I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived.

1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see GODDESS) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity. (Chiefly of heathen divinities; when applied to the One Supreme Being, this sense becomes more or less modified: see 6b).
Even when applied to the objects of polytheistic worship, the word has often a colouring derived from Christian associations. As the use of God as a proper name has throughout the literary period of English been the predominant one, it is natural that the original heathen sense should be sometimes apprehended as a transferred use of this; 'a god', in this view, is a supposed being put in the place of God, or an imperfect conception of God in some of His attributes or relations.
Besides having been thus modified by the influence of the Christian use, this sense as expressed in the definition has been affected by the pagan uses of L. deus and Gr. {theta}{epsilon}{goacu}{fsigma}, of which god is the accepted rendering. Thus, in speaking of Greek mythology, we distinguish the gods from the dà¦mons or supernatural powers of inferior rank, and from the heroes or demigods, who, though objects of worship, and considered as immortal, were not regarded as having ceased to be men; and the analogy of this nomenclature is often followed in speaking of modern polytheistic religions.
When the word is applied to heathen deities disparagingly, it is now written with a small initial; when the point of view of the worshipper is to any extent adopted, a capital may be used.

(emphasis not added, though textually transformed)

This first definition is general and rigorous enough to fully define the word god for any use of the question "do you believe in god?" or "do you believe in [name of a god]."

Yes, but it's only useful insofar as it provides the groundwork for what that specific god is at a basic level, because at the very least the concept of god has to be supernatural in origin. Although I'm not sure about the worshiping aspect considering how you can just be a deist and not worship the god you believe in.

But the main point here is that this is simply the framework for god(s), and doesn't narrow it down to a specific god or set of gods. It merely gives the criteria by which you can define something as being a god or not, but from then on if you are to assert that the specific god or set of gods that was defined by that criteria is actually existent, an igtheist demands that a verifiable standard be upheld in order to make the distinction between which god(s) is true and which gods are false.

Therefore, to take the stance that god cannot be defined and therefore the question is meaningless, is intellectually dishonest. It requires first that you reject the established coherent definition of god in order to say that the definition is not coherent.

And that's where you completely miss the point of igtheism. It doesn't reject the concept of god in general, because in order to do so the igtheist would have to examine every possible form of god. As per the definition that was given towards the beginning of this post, igtheism examines specific conceptions of god, the likes of which are not properly described by the definition of god put forth on its own, because the definition doesn't make the distinction as to which particular conception of god is being put forth for discussion, such as YHWH, or Zeus, or Thor, and so on. Again, all it does is lay the ground work for the very basics of what a god is defined as since it's just a general definition that applies to all forms of god, but it doesn't narrow it down to a specific god for a specific theistic stance, or all other possible gods that haven't been conceived.

What you're doing is essentially conflating the general concept of god with all possible form of gods, which I stated earlier is why I don't adhere to agnosticism or atheism, because you can only do so with a certain god in mind or in relation to the very basic concept of god (thus entailing all possible gods), which doesn't leave either stances with their doors open for much debate.

If I were to reject the definition of data structures, I could then say that the question of data structures is meaningless because data structures are not coherently defined. However, this would just get me laughed at. Likewise, anyone who rejects the established, coherent definition of god (A superhuman person who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity.) in order to call a particular deity meaningless and ill-defined is being intellectually dishonest.

Again, I must stress that the epistemological nature of igtheism limits it to theological claims and nothing more.

I know that this objection is just metaphorical for the sake of illustrating argument, but it's making the same mistake that I outlined in the previous rebuttal. An igtheist does not reject data structures as a whole (gods), an igtheist evaluates a specific data structure (specific god) that is being put forth for debate and demands that a falsifiable (testable) data structure (god or specific pantheon of gods) be put forth for evaluation. You've essentially gotten the process backwards.

An igtheist does not reject the root conception of god that is applicable to all gods as meaningless and ill-defined, then proceeding to show that all specific gods applicable to that definition (basically every god imaginable) are also meaningless and ill-defined by extension. An igtheist allows the root conception of god to be upheld as a standard to which whether or not whatever theological entity being put forth can truly be called a god, and from there evaluates the specific concept of god that is being put forth for that specific theological stance. Again, it's an examination on a case by case basis that demands a falsifiable conception of god.

Theism is the belief that such an entity exists. Atheism is simply the state of not being a theist. Atheism does not seek to define god, it simply acknowledges the existing coherent definition of god and says "probably not."

Igtheism doesn't seek to define god either. It simply demands that for any claim made in favor of a god or multiple gods, the conception of god being put forth must not be unfalsifiable and henceforth testable, so the igtheist is completely open to committing to a paradigm shift regarding god, if the conception of god that is being asserted as existent is vindicated according to the standards of evidence that are demanded by igtheism. Again, I don't see what's so intellectual dishonest about that, especially considering how it's open to any claims about which god(s) is true and which gods are false and doesn't just reject the concept of god in general (entailing all possible gods) outright.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If anything proved the need for a word like "ignostic", this discussion would be it!

For myself, I've always thought of the relationship between these - theism and atheism - in terms of set theory.

There's a set called "Philosophy", with a subset called "Theology".

The subset is "Theistic Philosophy", and the rest is "Non-theistic/Atheistic Philosophy".

The former includes Monotheism, Dualism, Polytheism (Pantheism) and Deism. The latter includes such philosophies as Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, certain Greek philosophies (Cyreniac/Epicurean), etc.

Perhaps others here have been thinking in similar terms, hence the confusion over whether atheism means more than just "without a belief in God(s)".

It would appear that a purist definition draws the distinction as against the "everyday" usage.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DepricatedZero]

This is where the "correct me if I'm wrong" bit comes in.

I was under the impression that igtheism says that "god" as a concept - not a specific god, not a single deity, but the very concept of "god" as undefined and meaningless. You affirmed that my understanding was correct in regard to how it would stand to a presentation of YHWH.

If taken in regard to only a specific suggestion of a specific god, then it makes sense. However, I read it as being a general stance on all theism. That said, the point in drawing out the definition of god and theism wasn't to form a dichotomy, but to illustrate that it is a theistic stance which, by its own definition(as I understood it then) rejected all theistic stances. The intellectual dishonesty I spoke of came in with acknowledging the stance as theistic by defining it with the word theism, when rejecting the word theism as meaningless. It would, by proxy, reject itself as meaningless.

I see now that igtheism deals with specific invocations, and applies on a per-discussion basis, rather than applying its scrutiny in a broader, general sense.

So here's the question then: is the question "can a god exist" provided we acknowledge the general definition, valid or meaningless?

If I'm right, and I suspect I am here, now, then the answer is yes. The question has meaning, because the definition provided is meaningful. Is this correct? However, the question of "does YHWH exist" is susceptible to the unfalsifiable nature of YHWH.

Also, I may have just found a god that does exist by my definition, which I can empirically prove. . . I just need to figure out if it can apply to "non-people" as other definitions imply. Back with another post on that later. (Edit: nope. If it isn't a Person then it requires Consciousness by all definitions. My god isn't a god.)

 

[Blood Wraith]

This is where the "correct me if I'm wrong" bit comes in.

I was under the impression that igtheism says that "god" as a concept - not a specific god, not a single deity, but the very concept of "god" as undefined and meaningless. You affirmed that my understanding was correct in regard to how it would stand to a presentation of YHWH.

Correct. In that specific instance for YHWH it's meaningless because it can't be verified.

If taken in regard to only a specific suggestion of a specific god, then it makes sense. However, I read it as being a general stance on all theism. That said, the point in drawing out the definition of god and theism wasn't to form a dichotomy, but to illustrate that it is a theistic stance which, by its own definition(as I understood it then) rejected all theistic stances. The intellectual dishonesty I spoke of came in with acknowledging the stance as theistic by defining it with the word theism, when rejecting the word theism as meaningless. It would, by proxy, reject itself as meaningless.

Ah, okay. I see then what you meant by the assertion that it must stand separate from theology as a whole.

I see now that igtheism deals with specific invocations, and applies on a per-discussion basis, rather than applying its scrutiny in a broader, general sense.

Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at.

So here's the question then: is the question "can a god exist" provided we acknowledge the general definition, valid or meaningless?

If I'm right, and I suspect I am here, now, then the answer is yes. The question has meaning, because the definition provided is meaningful. Is this correct? However, the question of "does YHWH exist" is susceptible to the unfalsifiable nature of YHWH.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. Like I said, I see the general definition as a standard by which we determine whether or not something can be considered a god, and then from there we narrow it down to a more specific god. So yeah, I think the general question as to the existence of god can have meaning, as this pertains to the general conception of god.

Now, admittedly I don't think it's possible for us to know as to whether or not god exists or what exactly god is if we are to assert that such a being or multiple beings exist, but that's just my opinion on the subject and it's not necessarily a view upheld by igtheism. And of course, my opinion on the question isn't sufficient to invalidate the question, so by all means it's still open for debate and I consider it valid.

Also, I may have just found a god that does exist by my definition, which I can empirically prove. . . I just need to figure out if it can apply to "non-people" as other definitions imply. Back with another post on that later.

I eagerly await your definition :3

 

[JustBusiness17]

Second, anything after "who is worshiped as" is worthless to the definition of god as a concept. The reasons that people may worship god says nothing about the actual qualities of "god".

So you're dismissing the definition - even though you earlier said that igtheism doesn't dismiss the definition. The definition doesn't provide a reason it provides attribution. One very important word I think you may have misread in the definition: AS. I think you're confusing that as being "for" or "because of" however it's attributing the state of "having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind" TO god. Therefore - yes, it is paramount to the definition. A god is a superhuman person(one with power beyond the capacity of man) who has power over nature or the fortune(in this sense chance, not wealth, though perhaps both) of mankind.

This whole paragraph is a testament to the necessity of clarifying definitions.


If I were to guess at your own source of confusion, it would be that - Igtheists don't dismiss the definition merely "because it is a definition". Igtheists reject the definition in all cases where that definition is unsubstantiated.

 

[DepricatedZero]

As above my friend

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

I would propably classify my self as an agnostic.

I dont think any ''human'' gods exist but supreme beings outside of the universe i dont know if they exist.

Incidently if Inteligent Designers think they god the evidence to prove god than:

1.Why can they say that maybe it was Allah and not the Christian God (or Zues for that matter).

2.If they are so sure they have the evidence that a designer is needed ( for the universe atleast,not evolution )why do they think its god and
not,maybe an inteligent race of beings that have created the world outside of the universe.

I may have mistaken through how or what inteligent design is,so excuse any errors in my points.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I dont think any ''human'' gods exist but supreme beings outside of the universe i dont know if they exist.

You should also be agnostic about the mere possibility of any type of existence outside of the universe... Something which needs to be proven before any type of meaningful discussion about the existence of "gods" can take place (in addition to a reasoned definition of "god")

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

I dont think any ''human'' gods exist but supreme beings outside of the universe i dont know if they exist.

You should also be agnostic about the mere possibility of any type of existence outside of the universe... Something which needs to be proven before any type of meaningful discussion about the existence of "gods" can take place (in addition to a reasoned definition of "god")

I am agnostic about supreme being outside of the universe.

I dont know if any god or supreme being exists outside of the universe and unless i see evidence for or agaist them my stance will remain as it is.

Personally,if there was the possibility that the universe was created by a ''supreme being'' i would propably think that the current universe was created (or maybe is a simulation/expirement) of a race of far more inteligent beings that we are (through that is pretty far fetched *Understatement*)

 

[JustBusiness17]

I am agnostic about supreme being outside of the universe.

I dont know if any god or supreme being exists outside of the universe and unless i see evidence for or agaist them my stance will remain as it is.

We don't know that anything exists outside of the universe. There are hypotheses in physics about multi-verses, and infinite parallels, etc, but nothing concrete. You would have to prove existence beyond existence before using that existence as a premise in a proposition about the existence of "god".

Now I understand what the wikipedia page on ignosticism meant by this:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts.

 

[TheGreekDollmaker]

I am agnostic about supreme being outside of the universe.

I dont know if any god or supreme being exists outside of the universe and unless i see evidence for or agaist them my stance will remain as it is.

We don't know that anything exists outside of the universe. There are hypotheses in physics about multi-verses, and infinite parallels, etc, but nothing concrete. You would have to prove existence beyond existence before using that existence as a premise in a proposition about the existence of "god".

Now I understand what the wikipedia page on ignosticism meant by this:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts.

Thanks for informing me of that.

 

[borrofburi]

This is relevant:

Belief in the, purest sense, requires no justification when it comes claims that are not about knowledge.

I am pretty sure I don't understand this statement, but if i do, I disagree.

 

[$ocrates]

Belief in the, purest sense, requires no justification when it comes claims that are not about knowledge.

I am pretty sure I don't understand this statement, but if i do, I disagree.

I am using the Justified, True, Belief, definition I guess. Belief is easy to acquire, justification is harder.

But with the definition of atheism I used in my above quoted post, I can accept that Atheism makes no claim about knowledge within its definition, therefore unless I ask you why you hold that belief, you do not need justification.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I am using the Justified, True, Belief, definition I guess. Belief is easy to acquire, justification is harder.

But with the definition of atheism I used in my above quoted post, I can accept that Atheism makes no claim about knowledge within its definition, therefore unless I ask you why you hold that belief, you do not need justification.

Except for you're still mis-defining the word. Atheism isn't actually a belief at all, it is the lack of one somewhat specific belief.

Look, this is all very sophomoric. You can, of course, define atheism to mean whatever you like, that's your privilege; but if your definition conforms neither to the entomology of the word, nor to what atheists themselves believe (or don't, as the case may be), then your definition is at best useless and at worst a blatant strawman.

Now it's irrelevant to me, and I suspect most of the non-religious members of this forum. I don't attach any emotional weight to the term, as per 'Christianity' or 'Islam,' so I'm entirely willing to abandon it if it becomes inconvenient. I only use the term because in its proper definition it adequately describes my position.

But now you say that Atheism requires belief? Then I guess I'm not an Atheist. Nor would be Hitchens, nor Harris, nor Dawkins, nor Dennett, nor, I suspect, the vast majority of 'Atheists.'

So I don't know who it is you imagine you're arguing with, but it's not us.

 

[borrofburi]

I am pretty sure I don't understand this statement, but if i do, I disagree.

I am using the Justified, True, Belief, definition I guess. Belief is easy to acquire, justification is harder.

But with the definition of atheism I used in my above quoted post, I can accept that Atheism makes no claim about knowledge within its definition, therefore unless I ask you why you hold that belief, you do not need justification.

Hmm, yes, I guess I can agree with that. I do not claim to know there is no god (though I don't necessarily call myself atheist, usually because the definition is very different for different people), I simply don't believe there is one because I have yet to see compelling evidence that in any way correlates with the massive claim of a deity. According to most common the definition I hear, and according to most of the self-labelled atheists I know, that makes me an atheist.

Still, I avoid the word as a self label for a number of reasons, the single most compelling reason is that self-labeling is at its best used as a communication device, and when the word has such different meanings for different people (from "I hate god" to "I eat babies" to Ii worship satan" to "satan is my god" to "I believe god can't possibly exist" to "I am angry at god" to "I believe god doesn't exist" to " I don't believe god exists"), I find that it fails to even approximately communicate my actual position.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

just as Atheism is a claim about belief, but claims must be justified

Do you play football? No? So not playing football is one of your hobbies.

Do you collect stamps? No? So one of your hobbies is not collecting stamps.

Do you believe that invisible unicorns live on uranus? No? So you claim that invisble unicorns do not life on uranus? But how can you justify that?

Not playing football isn,´t a hobby and neither is not collecting stamps and rejecting a claim is not the same as making a negative one.

 

[lrkun]

Please Convince me that skepticism regarding God's existence/nonexistence is incorrect.

Do you mean to say you're choosing the middle ground? That you don't know if god exists or does not exist?

This needs a qualified answer, because there are usually more than one way to derive (or to look) at the truth. One positive and one negative (or a middle ground in your case).

1. Here's one reason why it is incorrect:

a. It is a position of one who is lazy to search for the truth, because instead of doing an experiment, you opt to question it without actually searching for an answer, in effect to just not know.

Remedy:

The Scientific Method.

Ex. You pray that you'll be rich immediately.

Hypotheses:

HO: God will grant it (being the control which theists believe)

HA: God will not grant it (alternative hypothesis)

Experiment

You pray and see what happens.

Either HA or HO will be the conclusion.

You retest it again or seek others who'll test your results.

2. Here's one reason why it is correct.

a. It is the smartest position, provided you've tried your best within the realm of current technology to test if god exists or does not exists. Let's say the result of your analysis is always inconclusive. Then you ask others to do a similar experiment of which the same results come up (peer-review/test your results). Then you can say, you don't know.

-oOo-

Hope this helps.

 

[Dustnite]

Because someone already took this:

Damn you Brad Pitt...

 

[simonecuttlefish]

I am agnostic, and wish I could justify making a claim either way, simply because it would give me ore knowledge.
Please Convince me that skepticism regarding God's existence/nonexistence is incorrect.

I have no requirement for supernatural explanations of things I do not understand.
I have no wish for magic to explain anything.
I have no need to find a purpose for my life, other than to live it.
I have no desire to satisfy my curiosity with fantasies.
I have no fear that reason might trivialise me.
I have no demand for wonders greater than those that are evident.