"Am I Agnostic or Atheist" main page
Offline I wrote this email to the webmaster of this site... But I also feel like it should be discussed openly:
I believe you have a very serious problem in your article "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?"
You punch home the fact that you must choose to either believe or not believe. I feel like this is totally incorrect.
As a Theological Noncognitivist and all-around ignostic, i believe that the question of wether I have belief in God is totally and completely meaningless.
It would not be to correct for me to say.. "I do not believe in God." Because I personally have no understanding of what a God, or any God would be.
I can't say I am an a-theist, because I don't know what the tenants of theism are.
By acknowledging that you must either be an atheist or a theist, is almost self-defeating to the atheists movement. You are condoning that the term God has a meaning, you understand that meaning, and therefore give credence to it.
As an ignostic, I am saying the term God has NO meaning, I can't understand any already existing explanation, and I therefor dismiss the entire subject of theism.
For example: I am a Vampire Strong Atheist. I believe that Vampires, DO NOT EXIST and COULD NEVER EXIST. However, I know what a vampire is... It is a humanoid creature, that feeds on the blood of living people with fangs. It is like this because of a viral infection that has mutated the body.
If however, I am a Strong Atheist in regards to a Christian God, or any type of God... I don't know what he is... Any argument to the nature of God is usually via negativa, which is a logical fallacy.
I feel that the "Am I agnostic or atheist" article should be amended to include Theological Noncognitivism, and any atheist that claims strong atheism and not logical noncognitivism is ignorant.
- Login to post comments
So your argument is, that the "Generalization of a Specific-less God," in all senses is incoherent. If this your opinion, I understand why you are arguing as such.
Is your argument also that an incomplete definition, or a defintiion with no primary characteristics, or definitions via negativa are also incoherent?
If this is true, I completely understand where you are coming from.
ddolphin, it might help you to know that many of the atheists on this site are noncognitivists as well, including myself. Maybe you're arguing this hard because you think you're bringing us something new. It is because we are noncognitivists that we're atheists, it's a position all noncognitivists share.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I understand...
I just feel that admitting Strong Atheism to Theists, or other Non-Theists of any sort, is very close to admitting that the concept of God makes sense and is viable.
Do you understand my concern?
Yes of course, but do you understand that your argument doesn't make god any less viable to them? At least not anymore than any other type of argument would.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
I think that all arguments have potential to change someones mind.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Ddolphin seems to be arguing against strong atheism, not atheism in general. He seems to be confused about how we are defining these terms.
Also, I'm not a strong atheist, but based on what I've observed, strong atheists do NOT admit that "God" is a meaningful term. Rather, they completely reject God precisely because they've reached the conclusion that "God" is not meaningful, that it is internally inconsistent and incoherent.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I think about it differently I guess.
I dont know how else to explain my point.
But in all actuality I believe in no God or Gods.
I also believe that the term God is completely meaningless and nonsensical.
I believe I do not have the ability to even know what someone is talking about when they ask me, "Have you found the Lord?"
--
So I guess I am a Strong Atheist.
But I am skeptical about the choice of words, "I believe in no God or Gods."
I think its related to Russel's teapot in the sense that I am no more a Teacup Atheist then a God Atheist.
Maybe a teacup is a bad example though.
Maybe something like a "nonphysical entity in a universe we can never get to, that doesn't even exist anymore".
Don't know...
ddolphin, here's why this issue is important to me:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/i_win_battle_whether_we_should_use_term_atheist_describe_ourselves
I wouldn't mind your input.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Magic deities with the usual quiver-full of powers of creation and destruction such deities are claimed by their earthly adherents to possess.
I don't believe any of the gods worshiped by any of the major religions on earth exist or have ever existed
But I concede that given I can't even conceive of the universe, the chances of me being able to conceive the being who made it are zero.
Your main point - that there has never been a proper definition of god supplied, a fundamental that should preclude us discussing it - is correct.
I've tried to use this silver bullet in discussions with theists before but they've chosen to ignore it or to say that not understanding god is how things are meant to be.
I look forward hearing you discuss this with caposkia on a parallel thread here sometime soon.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
To clarify, my argument is not about propositions or concepts, it's about beliefs. Beliefs exist, or do not exist, within minds. The target concept of a belief can be coherent or incoherent, it doesn't matter. The question is whether the belief itself exists inside my mind or not. If you feed me a meaningless/incoherent concept, such as 'god', I take an inventory of my finite set of beliefs, see there's no belief with the target concept 'god', and report truthfully and without incoherence, "Nope, I don't hold any belief in a 'god' concept."
I also happen to be a strong atheist for certain conceptions of gods, especially incoherent/meaningless ones. But that does not exclude me in any way from the broader group of a-theists who simply lack a positive belief in a god of any kind.
The 'generalization of specific-less' thing never enters into the conversation, because that's talking about the target concept. Again, the point I'm making is about beliefs, and the presence or lack thereof within my mind.
My point about asking you about 'any concepts which are incoherent' was simply to illustrate to you that you also don't hold such beliefs, and so you also fit the definition we use of 'atheist'. Again, not about the general or specific concept at all, but about the presence or absence of certain categories of beliefs.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Since I am jumping in late here, I am simply going to say that to date I do not believe in any god(s), goddess(es), demi-god(s), Demi_goddess(es) or any other supernatural, mythological creature/deity, from any time period or religious concept. Why? Because I have seen no evidence that they exist in any form, and all explanations regarding them have been well more or less contradictory and meaningless. So unless you have another definition of god or evidence of god I have no reason to believe in such said deity.
Are you a strong atheist because its not atheism in general he is arguing about
Yes I am actually, however there is always that possibility which logic dictates to me that I cannot know 100 percent that there isn't a god like being out there that could be classified as a god type, however towards all the description of god(s) to date I see no evidence and cannot believe in them at all, I have no doubt in my mind that they do not exist, there is no evidence for their existence.
I agree...
I have no qualms about representing myself to theists as atheist.
I would introduce myself as satanist, or fascist, or anything that has any connotation, as that is not the problem for me... (yes I know fascism isn't a religion)
--
For Theists:
The reason I feel it is okay to introduce myself as an atheist, is for the points people have brought up... Theological Noncognitvism can be interrupted by theists as: "No one can know God anyhow." or "You haven't met his revelation yet, so you are unable to know." or "Satan is blinding me." etc etc etc forever...
I believe all these arguments to be flawed, and if Theists could rationally listen to what I am saying, they would understand what I ment when I said I was a TN. They would then understand how meaningless their own person definition of God is.
--
For Atheist:
I am glad to learn that most, if not all, on this site are also TN. Most people I meet in the real world. Mostly college students, and professors have never been introduced to this point and seeminly so give credence to God-Ideas and God-Talk. Which I feel in the secular scope is a very wrong idea. Maybe this is simply my ignorace to the larger atheistic demographic, and if this is the case I have learned my lesson.
--
Let me know what you think
Language being what it is, they can sound the same in a discussion.
This could very well be the whole problem, which can be attributed to my ignorance! Which in turn teaches me something!
I'm sorry for anyone I stressed out with my conjectures!
Well at least you gave me something interesting to read.
Fascinating discussion, people. Sorry I don't really have anything to contribute.
im also on the same page but when i think of a mind floating in eternity it kinda reinforces that im strong atheist
That's my issue with it all, the concept of most gods are ridiculous, especially the Abrahamic god, that can see, hear and know everything, yet does not have a physical body most of the time, cannot be seen, tested or have any form of physical evidence, but requires nothing more than faith to be real. It makes absolute no sense and is contradictory in all forms of logic. In reality most gods are just metaphorical, especially most pagan, greek/roman gods, they were there to explain either natural events, like rivers, oceans, storms, the seasons, or human nature/emotions, love, hatred, greed or our war-like nature.
My problem is that I'm fairly certain most "believers" don't have a very strong grasp on what it is they're believing, either (in the sense that I suspect many people in here have read/studied more of the bible than most self-proclaimed "Christians"
. I'm not convinced this has any real bearing on believing or not believing.