• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism vs (ignosticism, theological noncognitivism, igtheism)

Curious George

Veteran Member
Curious George >>god = an intelligent, conscious, immortal entity<<

"intelligent", "conscious" and "immortal" are adjectives. What noun do they modify? "God"? But that's the row of letters that you claim to be defining. You say "'God' is an entity". Are you thinking of something for "entity" to refer to? "Entity" is just a catch-all word, like "thing", "something", "thingamajig", "doohickey" etc. Just saying "entity", "thing", or "thingamajig" doesn't describe anything to think of. What am I supposed to think of? A finite-sized chunk of matter? I don't know what to think of.

Curious George>>...that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.<<

But all I can see that you've done is to put verb and adjectives and verb and adjective phrases along with "God", "thing" or "entity" and to claim that such verbs, adjectives and phrases have some defined noun "God" to modify. When you define "plumber" you don't say "a thing that plumbs", or "an entity that plumbs". You say (or certainly imply) "a HUMAN that plumbs". We know what a HUMAN is, so we know what entity to think of doing the plumbing. To recap: When you say "a HUMAN that plumbs" we know what you're talking about. Then after telling us that you're talking about a HUMAN, you can then go ahead and tell us about the plumbing that the HUMAN does, to distinguish the plumber from other humans.

So tell us what 'entity' you're talking about. Please don't try to go telling "what an entity DOES" and think you're telling "what an entity IS". Doing so does not define an entity if you haven't told us (or implied) what entity, if any, that you're talking about, so we can think of or imagine it. Only when you've done that, can you tell us 'what it does' to distinguish it from other entities.

I must question your implied claim that you are able to think of or to imagine any entity to label "God" that Christians are talking about when they utter the sound "God" or write that row of letters.

Cheers to you too.


Those adjectives referred to entity not to god. And while you are want to label "entity" as a catch all like "thing," i would point out that yes all entities are things but not all things are entities. I think you are going to have to elaborate on your exception that you seem to take with my coherent definition.
 

Igtheism

Rdwin McCravy
blü 2>>>I have no doubt that gods exist as things imagined.<<

I agree that I can imagine gods such as Zeus. The ancient Greeks drew pictures and carved statues of the god Zeus and stamped his picture on their coins. I can imagine Zeus as well as a magic man named Jesus and a not so magic man named Moses and Muhammad. However when Christians say "God", I have no idea of anything they could be talking about.

blü 2>>>(It's often said that God exists as a supernatural, or spiritual, or divine, or immaterial being.<<

While I can easily imagine supernatural, i.e., magic things happening, such as we used to see in the old TV series "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie", I don't know how to imagine anything for the rows of letters "God", "spiritual", "divine", or "immaterial being" to refer to. Can you help me out there?

blü 2>>>No test can distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, the divine or the immaterial from the imaginary.)<<

As I said above, I do understand "supernatural" but not the others.

blü 2>>The question, therefore is whether any god exists who has objective existence, that is, can be found in the world<<

I mentioned the fact that there are, or once were, people who worshiped the sun. In fact I've even heard that the sun was the first god. It is quite plausible that early man could have worshiped the sun as a god.

blü 2>>>external to the self, also called nature, also called the realm of the physical sciences. I don't see that as the crux of the matter.

blü 2>>>Rather, the point is that no Abrahamic religion (nor any other that I'm aware of) has a definition / description of a real god such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it were God (or, a god) or not.<<

That's my point. I've said several times that it seems to me that if somebody is talking but cannot imagine or think of anything they could be talking about, then they might as well just be singing "Tra-la-la-la-la" for they couldn't be talking about anything.

blü 2>>So, for example, I can determine that this keyboard I'm typing on is not a panda,<<

What you mean is that the word-coiners of old did not choose the same row of alphabet letters to spell a word for the device you type on as they chose for the white and black animal. The word-coiners instead chose the row of letters "k-e-y-b-o-a-r-d" for the thing you type on and they chose the row of letters "p-a-n-d-a" for the black and white animal.

blü 2>>not light in the orange part of the spectrum, not a lump of quartzite, even that it's not a unicorn. <<

This is just more discussion of what rows of letters the word-coiners of old chose to spell nouns for things. Indeed the word-coiners of old usually chose different rows of letters for different things. But sometimes they chose the same row of letters for different things. FI, the word coiners chose the letters "b-a-t" to spell the noun for both a flying mammal as well as a noun for the thing baseball players hit baseballs with.

blü 2>>But I can't determine whether it's God or not.<<

The capitalized row of letters "God" is the main row of letters that I have no understanding of or any concept of anything it could refer to. I don't know of any reason to believe or even suspect in the least that "God" refers to anything. Do you?

blü 2>>That's to say, there's no coherent concept of a real god, one with objective existence, one not imaginary.<<

Are you claiming to be able to have a concept for the capitalized row of letters "God", when spoken by a Christian or Jew? Or "Allah" when spoken by Muslim?

blü 2>>>Equally, there's no coherent concept of "godness", the quality that a real God would have and a real superscientist who could make universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack.<<

I have to disagree with you here. I can certainly imagine a magic man named "Jesus" doing magic things, like turning water to wine, feeding multitudes with only a few fish and loaves of bread. I can imagine this magic man making dead people come back to life. I can imagine this magic man being mercilessly nailed to a cross to die. There is a big difference between imagining magical things happening and believing that magical things can happen. I certainly don't believe in any magic. But that's not what I'm saying here, and has I'm saying that I know of no reason whatever to believe or even to suspect that the rows of letters "God" --(capitalized written or spoken by Christians, not "god" with a little "g" used to refer to Zeus and other imaginable gods)-- or "divine" or "spirit" refer to anything at all. I can believe that many people do believe that they know of something for them to refer to, but I can't believe they really do. They just think they do. Maybe you think they do, too. Do you? If so what do you think they mean?.

blü 2>>That raises the question, why would you worship a superscientist?<<

That's funny! lol. Where did you get the crazy notion that I would worship a superscientist? You mean like Einstein? That's too funny!

blü 2<<And the further question, why would you not instead be giving utmost priority in finding out what out what the superscientist knows that you don't.<<

That beats all. Why on earth would you ask that?
 
Last edited:

Igtheism

Rdwin McCravy
night912>>>Go to the tools button and click delete on your duplicate posts<<<

I'll gladly do that, but where do I find the "tools button"?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Jim>>I don’t think that’s what “atheism” means now, today, to all the people who call themselves “atheists,” in Internet discussions. Maybe not anywhere.<<

Interesting. So, Jim, what do YOU say "atheism" means today? If you say as most atheists do "Atheism is the belief that no gods exist",
I think that many atheists, maybe most of them, would not define “atheism” that way. For example In my understanding of online identity atheism, it just means that a person is not saying to herself or others that she believes in God. That includes people who think they know that God does not exist, but it also includes you. In online identify atheism, anyone who is not saying to himself or others “I believe in God” is an atheist.
But my claim is that no one can give a meaningful definition for "God". Do you agree?
I wouldn’t say that no one can. Anyone can. For example, I could define “God” as “the spoon that I’m using now, eating ice cream at McDonald’s. Whether anyone actually ever has given a meaningful definition for “God” is an open question for me. If I ever saw one, I don’t remember it.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" refers to something that exists.
Some do. Some don’t.
Atheists believe that "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" refers to something that does not exist.
There might be some who believe that. I’ve seen some who don’t.

i would say: Maybe sometimes people believe that “God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" refers to something that exists. Maybe sometimes they believe that "God", "Yahweh" or "Allah" refers to something that does not exist.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
night912>>>Go to the tools button and click delete on your duplicate posts<<<

I'll gladly do that, but where do I find the "tools button"?
E8977950-87E2-4C74-A2C0-E41FFB94167A.jpeg
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Interesting. So, Jim, what do YOU say "atheism" means today? If you say as most atheists do "Atheism is the belief that no gods exist",
Since when do "most atheists" say that?


then what about the sun? Sun worshipers worship the sun. That makes the sun a god.
Maybe to the sun-worshipper (presumably they also uphold the Sun as a god). Not necessarily to anyone else.

By definition, a god is something worshiped, right?
Well, no. And aren't you the one arguing that "god" has no definition?


But my claim is that no one can give a meaningful definition for "God". Do you agree?
I wouldn't agree. Plenty of people have meaningful definitions for "God" that work within the context of their specific belief system.

I've never seen a general definition for "God" (or "god") that works across all theistic belief systems, but that's a separate issue.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Igtheism I’m only on the first page of the thread, but I have some thoughts that I want to post while they’re fresh. I’m thinking that there’s a long and convoluted history behind feuding about God in Internet discussions, which might make it hard to agree on what’s happening without going back through all that, but I want to try. There might actually be more than one topic of around God beliefs, but I’ll just discuss one of them. On one side sometimes people might be thinking that it’s very important to believe that God is real or exists. What that means in practice is people saying to themselves and other people “I believe that God is real,” or “I believe that God exists.” On the other side sometimes people might be thinking that thinking and talking that way facilitates people doing some of the worst things that they do. What happens between them sometimes in Internet discussions, that people sometimes call “debating,” looks to me like a kind of combat sport with words, where no one cares what anyone is thinking of, if they actually are thinking of anything, when they say “God,” “believe,” “real,” “exist,” “evidence,” “proof,” “science,” “truth,” “reality,” and some other words. In other words, your point that people aren’t thinking of anything that could exist or not exist, when they say “God” is irrelevant for their purposes in online feuding.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I claim that Christians only think "God" refers to something that exists, but it doesn't And about atheists, I claim that atheists only think "God" refers to something that does not exist.
I would say: When people say that they believe in God, as a way of saying that some creator or mover of the universe exists or is real, they can’t be imagining anything as “God” that could exist or be real, and be the creator or mover of the universe. If any people are thinking that there can’t possibly be any creator or mover of the universe, they can’t be imagining anything as a creator or mover that can’t exist, that actually could exist.

The part that I crossed out needs more work.

Maybe; When people say that they believe in God, as a way of saying that some creator or mover of the universe exists or is real, they can’t be thinking of that creator or mover in any way that it would make to say that it exists or does not exist.

I’m thinking of that as possibly a different way of saying what you’re trying to say. I might agree with part of it but not all of it.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Igtheism I’ll try again to say what you might be thinking in a different way. When people say they believe in God, as a way of saying that some creator or mover of the universe exists or is real, if they are imagining anything as that God that exists or is real, then it can not be the creator or mover. I would agree with that.

You might also be thinking that when people say that they believe in God, as a way of saying that some creator or mover of the universe exists or is real, they aren’t thinking of that God in any way that anyone could meaningfully say that it exists or does not exist. I would not agree with that.

However that may be, I’m thinking that it’s all irrelevant for anyone’s purposes in feudung about God beliefs.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Igtheism I’ve read all your posts in this thread now. If I understand the point you’re making about people saying that they believe in God, it might the same point that @blü 2 has made, and I agree with it. When people say that they believe in God, as a way of saying that some creator or mover of the universe exists or is real, if they are imagining anything that could possibly exist or be real, then that could not be the creator or mover. Spending for myself personally, I have a feeling that there is some kind of reality behind the metaphors, but I can’t find any way to define “esist” or “real,” to actually say that He exists or is real.

If I understand what you’re saying about people saying that God does not exist, I disagree. First of all, I don’t think that most of the people denouncing God beliefs are saying that He does not exist. If anyone actually is saying that, I don’t agree that what they’re saying can not be meaningful. Speaking for myself personally, I’m saying that if God exists, then He can’t be the creator or mover of everything that exists. Maybe it would be possible to define “exist” in two different ways, so that God can exist1, and be the creator of everything that exist2s it would still be meaningful to say that He does not exist2.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Igtheism I’m thinking that nothing that anyone could ever possibly imagine or describe accurately could possibly be the creator or mover of the universe. I’m thinking that when people who think of God as the creator or mover of the universe say that He is exists or is real, they can’t be thinking of God in any way that He actually could be the creator or mover. If they actually are thinking of something when they say “God,” then it can’t be the God that they say they believe in.

If anyone is thinking that whatever God they could be talking about can’t possibly exist, I think that can be a meaningful statement. When people say that they believe in God, it is never only a creator God. It is always also the same God as the ones in some religions scriptures, or a powerful loving God, or some other kind of God with a specific character and specific capacities. I’m thinking that it can be meaningful to doubt or deny that the universe could possibly have been created by anything with that character and those capacities, if anyone is actually doing that, which is still an open question for me.
 

Igtheism

Rdwin McCravy
Jim>>>I think that many atheists, maybe most of them, would not define “atheism” that way.<<<

What do you think they are referring to when they say "atheist"?

Jim >>For example In my understanding of online identity atheism, it just means that a person is not saying to herself or others that she believes in God.<<

I don't say "I don't believe in God", just like I don't say "I don't believe in Zop". I don't know of anything that "God" of "Zop" refers to that I do or don't believe in.

All I know is that Christians arrange the three alphabet letters capital "G", little "o" and little "d" in a row, write them and speak the implied pronunciation. I am aware that Christians utter them as though they believe they referred to something. They usually appear to feel emotions of awe, fear, and submission when they speak the sound "God" or write it or hear them spoken. So I assume that Christians believe that they believe that that row of letters refers to something that they worship. They put verbs of causation and emotion after "God", but I know of nothing they could be talking about when they speak or write "God". They say "God" is defined by Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created heaven and earth". I can't get any concept from that, can you? If so tell me how. "God" would have to be already defined before it could make sense to put the verb "created" after it. A verb must have a defined subject before it can be used.

Jim>>That includes people who think they know that God does not exist,<<

There's that row of letters "G-o-d" again. You must not have understood that I have no idea or concept of anything that the sequence of three letters "God" could refer to. So there is no need for you to write it without telling me of something that you think it refers to. I wasn't born with any a priori knowledge of anything the sequence of letters "God" refers to, and in my entire life I've never learned of any knowledge of anything it could refer to. So I'm just like a newborn baby as far as having any concept of anything it could refer to.

Jim >>but it also includes you. In online identify atheism, anyone who is not saying to himself or others “I believe in God” is an atheist.<<

That's not what the dictionary says. The dictionary says this [copied and pasted]:
atheist
[ˈāTHēəst]
NOUN

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
athe·ist | \ ˈā-thē-ist \
Definition of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

The lexicographers who wrote that apparently believe that "God" refers to something.

Christians disbelieve in every god I have any concept of, except the sun, which was the only existent god which I know of that was ever worshiped by the sun-worshipers of old. Christians don't believe in any of the nonexistent gods Zeus, Odin, Hercules, Atlas, etc. So surely you don't think the word "atheist" can be used to refer to Christians, do you? So what the lexicographers wrote in their dictionary can't be right, right?

Jim>>I wouldn’t say that no one can. Anyone can. For example, I could define “God” as “the spoon that I’m using now,<<

That would be making up your own non-English language. Let's stick with English.

Jim>>eating ice cream at McDonald’s.<<

Really, Jim? Inside McDonald's? What state are you in that allows that during the pandemic?

Whether anyone actually ever has given a meaningful definition for “God” is an open question for me. If I ever saw one, I don’t remember it.

What do you think about the purported definition above? It was from Merriam-Webster. Do you consider it to be a definition for "God"?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Jim >>but it also includes you. In online identify atheism, anyone who is not saying to himself or others “I believe in God” is an atheist.<<

That's not what the dictionary says. The dictionary says this [copied and pasted]:
atheist
[ˈāTHēəst]
NOUN

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
athe·ist | \ ˈā-thē-ist \
Definition of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

The lexicographers who wrote that apparently believe that "God" refers to something.
You think that definition doesn't apply to you?

I can't see how someone who thinks "god" is undefined could possibly have a belief in a god... and if you don't have that belief, then you lack it.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
What do you think they are referring to when they say "atheist"?
I think that they’re referring to different things at different times. I think that sometimes they’re referring to people who never say to themselves or others the words “I believe in God.”
You must not have understood that I have no idea or concept of anything that the sequence of three letters "God" could refer to.
I think that I understood it very well.
Jim >>but it also includes you. In online identify atheism, anyone who is not saying to himself or others “I believe in God” is an atheist.<<

That's not what the dictionary says.
I’m just informing you, that’s what people mean sometimes, when they call themselves and other people “atheists.”
 

Igtheism

Rdwin McCravy
jim>>>I can't see how someone who thinks "god" is undefined...

You're getting "God" and "god" mixed up. Many, if not most, atheists do make this mistake of language. You seem to erroneously believe that the capitalized row of letters "God" and the uncapitalized word "god" are the same. They are not at all! The uncapitalized word "god" is a VERY MEANINGFUL WORD for it can refer to anything worshiped by anybody. But the row of letters "God" with a capital "G" is the meaningLESS row of letters that Christians speak as though it referred to something that they worship. But they only think it does. My claim is that "God" (capitalized) does not refer to any god (uncapitalized).

So please distinguish whether you are talking about the meaningLESS row of alphabet letters "God" that Christians speak and the meaningFUL word "god" which refers to anything that is worshiped by anybody. We can't have any discussion if you are going to use the meaningful word "god" and the meaningless row of letters "God" interchangeably.

I've had this "god"-"God" trouble before when talking with atheists. So please always distinguish them. I will repeat and re-repeat: My stand is that the capitalized row of alphabet letters "God" does not refer to any god. The last word in the preceding sentence is not capitalized and can refer to anything that is worshiped. Please be careful to distinguish which you are speaking of. To confuse them can only lead to total misunderstanding.

Maybe we ought to use "allah" and "Allah" exclusively and never use "god" and "God". Then it wouldn't make any difference whether you wrote "allah" or "Allah", for they are both equally meaningless. But "god" is a meaningful word. It can even refer to the sun.
 

Igtheism

Rdwin McCravy
Curious George>>>Those adjectives referred to entity not to god.<<

Just like Jim and most atheists, you confuse the Christians' capitalized row of alphabet letters "God" with the meaningful word "god" (uncapitalized). As I told him, we cannot have a discussion if you confuse them. My stand is that "God" does not refer to a god.

My suggestion to him was that if you can only write "god" for the Christian's row of letters "God", then to have a discussion we can't write either of those. I told him that perhaps we should only use "Allah" and "allah" because neither of those are meaningful.

Curious George>>>And while you are want to label "entity" as a catch all like "thing," i would point out that yes all entities are things but not all things are entities.<<<

Then why don't you name some things that aren't entities or some entities that aren't things? When you say something semantical like that, you must always give examples.

Curious George>>>>I think you are going to have to elaborate on your exception that you seem to take with my coherent definition.<<

I'll gladly explain any terms that I use just as I explained the difference between the meaningful word "god" and meaningless row of letters "God". What else do you want to know? I'm awaiting your semantical examples of things that are not entities or entities that are not things.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You're getting "God" and "god" mixed up. Many, if not most, atheists do make this mistake of language. You seem to erroneously believe that the capitalized row of letters "God" and the uncapitalized word "god" are the same. They are not at all! The uncapitalized word "god" is a VERY MEANINGFUL WORD for it can refer to anything worshiped by anybody. But the row of letters "God" with a capital "G" is the meaningLESS row of letters that Christians speak as though it referred to something that they worship. But they only think it does. My claim is that "God" (capitalized) does not refer to any god (uncapitalized).
If you think that "god" is defined, why would you consider yourself an igtheist?
 
Top