Agnostic VS Atheist

[9Westy9]

just because an ignostic doesn't call him/her self and atheist doesn't mean that they aren't one. They just see no reason to call themselves one as god is a meaningless concept to them. It's just why most people don't call themselves an 'agobbledeegoopist' because a 'gobbledeegoop' is meaningless

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry I missed this post earlier.

Personally I would not suggest that I am an atheist - I use the Ignostic approach (rather than being ignostic) to arrive at a theological position which does not contradict the possibility of some concept for 'god' existing.

Therefore I believe that such a 'god' - using a general minimalist description of such an entity or force (no I do not even limit the concept to being an 'entity') - is possible to exist. As such I am not an Atheist, I use the Ignostic approach and this may make me more liable to adopt a rational approach (with the inclusion of rational tools such as logical examination) to metaphysical concepts, however, the term Atheist does not apply as their are some concepts of 'God' that while I do not believe in, I do believe are possible.

Btw, I also use the fideistic approach for discussion (whereas I use the ignostic approach for debate and rational discussion)

Wait... so you have a concept of god that you consider to be possible?

Sounds like you're not using "the ignostic approach", then.

 

[Willamena]

just because an ignostic doesn't call him/her self and atheist doesn't mean that they aren't one. They just see no reason to call themselves one as god is a meaningless concept to them. It's just why most people don't call themselves an 'agobbledeegoopist' because a 'gobbledeegoop' is meaningless

But it also doesn't mean they are one.

 

[Willamena]

"You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts."

If a person can't even define the term "god" to the point where he can evaluate statements that use it, then it would be impossible for him to truthfully say that he has a belief in any god.

Without a belief in a god, he is an atheist.

IMO, the ignostic is a special type of atheist who gives a very particular reason for his atheism.

He also cannot say that he doesn't believe in god. There's nothing for him to not believe in.

 

[9Westy9]

But it also doesn't mean they are one.

however he doesn't believe in any particular God because he finds the term meaningless. Based on the definition of atheism in the OP I'd say that ignosticism is a form of atheism. Except they find the term meaningless, maybe even slightly insulting, due to their being no good definition of 'god'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He also cannot say that he doesn't believe in god. There's nothing for him to not believe in.

I get the sense this might come down to how we define "atheist". IMO, an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

An ignostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in gods because he believes that the term "god" hasn't been properly defined. This implies that he neither believes nor disbelieves in gods. This implies that he does not believe in gods. Therefore, he's an atheist.

Edit: I think the important point here is that you do acknowledge that an ignostic doesn't believe in any gods (regardless of what else the term "ignostic" implies). IMO, this is sufficient for us to recognize the ignostic as an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

An ignostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in gods because he believes that the term "god" hasn't been properly defined. This implies that he neither believes nor disbelieves in gods. This implies that he does not believe in gods.

That's fallacious logic. Neither believing nor disbelieving does not imply anything, especially about his belief one way or the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's fallacious logic. Neither believing nor disbelieving does not imply anything, especially about his belief one way or the other.

If you do not believe in two things when considered together, it means you do not believe in either of those things when considered individually.

"I do not have apples or bananas" implies "I do not have apples."

"I do not believe or disbelieve in gods" implies "I do not believe in gods."

 

[Willamena]

If you do not believe in two things when considered together, it means you do not believe in either of those things when considered individually.

"I do not have apples or bananas" implies "I do not have apples."

"I do not believe or disbelieve in gods" implies "I do not believe in gods."

It also implies I do not disbelieve in gods. The implications negate each other for a statement of the absolute, so "atheist" is not defined here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It also implies I do not disbelieve in gods.

So what? Are you saying that this is a part of the definition of "atheist"?

The implications negate each other for a statement of the absolute,

They're separate statements; they don't have the power to "negate" each other.

Edit: I've kept thinking about what you're trying to say here, and I can't see it. Or at least, what I think is the most likely meaning is also obviously false, so I have a hard time assuming that you meant it that way.

It seems to me that you're implying that under certain conditions, it would be correct to say "both 'A' and 'B' are true, but because 'B' is true, we can't take 'A' as true on its own." Is this really what you're trying to say? If so, then you'll need to give some rationale for why you think this. If not, then you'll need to explain yourself more clearly.

... if you care about communicating whatever it is you're trying to communicate, anyhow.

so "atheist" is not defined here.

No, it was defined here:

I get the sense this might come down to how we define "atheist". IMO, an atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.

Hypothetically, if we asked someone "do you smoke?" and they responded with "what's smoking?", would you consider it wrong for me to call that person a non-smoker?

Edit: would you at least agree that ignosticism is a type of non-theism?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I've experienced a few good reasons to question 'define god first'

For example, one guy believed God was life force, and when I said I don't believe in God he got on me about that...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've experienced a few good reasons to question 'define god first'

For example, one guy believed God was life force, and when I said I don't believe in God he got on me about that...

I deal with that problem by asking "what makes this 'life force' God?"

Also, depending what he meant by "life force", it could be that I still wouldn't have a problem saying that I didn't believe in it.

 

[Willamena]

So what? Are you saying that this is a part of the definition of "atheist"?


They're separate statements; they don't have the power to "negate" each other.

Edit: I've kept thinking about what you're trying to say here, and I can't see it. Or at least, what I think is the most likely meaning is also obviously false, so I have a hard time assuming that you meant it that way.

It seems to me that you're implying that under certain conditions, it would be correct to say "both 'A' and 'B' are true, but because 'B' is true, we can't take 'A' as true on its own." Is this really what you're trying to say? If so, then you'll need to give some rationale for why you think this. If not, then you'll need to explain yourself more clearly.

... if you care about communicating whatever it is you're trying to communicate, anyhow.


No, it was defined here:



Hypothetically, if we asked someone "do you smoke?" and they responded with "what's smoking?", would you consider it wrong for me to call that person a non-smoker?

Edit: would you at least agree that ignosticism is a type of non-theism?

The person "who does not believe in any gods" is not the ignostic.

Yes, I care about communication, though it's not an issue for me as it is for you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The person "who does not believe in any gods" is not the ignostic.

Hang on - you agreed to this point earlier. Have you changed your mind?

 

[Willamena]

Hang on - you agreed to this point earlier. Have you changed your mind?

No, I haven't changed my mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I haven't changed my mind.

I think we've pretty much established that we're working from different definitions of "atheist"; do we also have different definitions for "also"?

"You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts."

If a person can't even define the term "god" to the point where he can evaluate statements that use it, then it would be impossible for him to truthfully say that he has a belief in any god.

Without a belief in a god, he is an atheist.

IMO, the ignostic is a special type of atheist who gives a very particular reason for his atheism.

He also cannot say that he doesn't believe in god. There's nothing for him to not believe in.

 

[Willamena]

I think we've pretty much established that we're working from different definitions of "atheist"; do we also have different definitions for "also"?

I hope not.

He (the ignostic) also cannot say that he doesn't believe in god.
​

and

The person "who does not believe in any gods" (can say this about themselves) is not the ignostic.
​

do not contradict each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hope not.

He (the ignostic) also cannot say that he doesn't believe in god.
​

and

The person "who does not believe in any gods" (can say this about themselves) is not the ignostic.
​

do not contradict each other.

Let's step through this: the "also" in the first statement refers to something that was said earlier, presumably in my post you were replying to. What was it?

 

[Willamena]

Let's step through this: the "also" in the first statement refers to something that was said earlier, presumably in my post you were replying to. What was it?

Not relevant.

You're ostensibly arguing that the ignostic is found in the atheist, but actually arguing that the atheist is found in the agnostic.

I'm just arguing that the atheist found in the ignostic is not the ignostic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not relevant.

You're ostensibly arguing that the ignostic is found in the atheist, but actually arguing that the atheist is found in the agnostic.

I'm just arguing that the atheist found in the ignostic is not the ignostic.

So again: it seems that this just comes down to us having different definitions for "atheist".