Offensive Symbols in KAG --> Offensive Symbols in General --> General Chat on Religion

Eww. Theological noncognitivism? Really?

Well, seeing as you raised it...

Unless you put forward a verifiable reason for us to address the topic, all discussion of ignosticism is meaningless.

I think that covers the main problem with ignosticism quite nicely. :p Basically, it asks you to jump through a whole set of hoops before you can even start talking, hoops that are (as I outline below) impossible for anyone actually get through.

Ofc, the deeper problem with TN & ignostic arguments is that they try to bull you into a position where, unless you can completely quantify the infinite in finite terms, your argument is meaningless; as in, not even worth rebutting. To put it metaphorically:

We are in a sealed box. We'd like you to accurately describe what things might be outside our box using, as reference, only things inside the box-- that way we can check to see if you're pulling the wool over our eyes. Wait, what's that? You want us to believe there are things outside that we don't have analogues of in here? You're trying to say we can't test out what you're telling us using what we've got in here? How do you expect us to believe you? And how did you come up with these ridiculous ideas in the first place, did they just 'come to you' or did 'something' from out there whisper it in your ear? Wait. No. Don't answer that. Clearly you're talking nonsense & clearly this discussion is pointless, EOD.​

They ask you to preform a task using tools that are not up for the job.

Actually, that kinda how all my debates with theo noncognitiveists have gone-- them deciding (usually after only a few sentences on my part) that I've got nothing good to say & walking out of the discussion + giving me the cold shoulder for the rest of the day. :(
----

Anyway, moving on to happier things...

Flawed analogy; soz, CoughDrop. You're equating having a deity out there with having someone sitting behind a security camera.

This doesn't work because (unless the "significant purchasing decision" is deciding whether or not to shoplift) post decision the security dude doesn't have any cause for further interaction with you based on said decision, whereas a deity might have reason to reward/reprimand/<other-interaction-here> you based on your decision (depending, ofc, on what rules the deity has set in place for the universe).

Basically, the analogy breaks because it puts a trivial onlooker (unless you're stealing stuff, in which case the security person is very definitely non-trivial :p) on the same level as a non-trivial onlooker (i.e. an all-powerful, universe ruling deity who might possibly have an opinion on how you live your life).

 

Surely that assumes that the deity in question gives a damn? :p
The analogy may be a weak one, but it remains a reasonably good analogy for explaining Coughdrop's point; I would posit that it's not possible to have a strong analogy for it, because the very idea of a deity (particularly if we are looking at the Christian God as a reference point) is that it is both infinite in all respects and therefore incomparable.
In a similar way, when analogising the creation of the universe with a watch, you can only formulate an analogy that is seen as weak in relation to the actual situation described for the pure and simple reason that the actual situation is so indescribable, such a stretch of our normal experiences that we cannot analogise it with particular ease.


Maybe this discussion should be rebranded so it basically discusses all kinds of beliefs? :/

 

Good to know you're asking because you're actually interested, CD. It's always refreshing when people are in it for more than a chance to brawl with words. :)

My issue with Ignosticism is not that it's totally useless (as you've just pointed out, there are verifiable elements that we could label 'god' for argument's sake) but that it generally constitutes an attempt to exclude the metaphysical from debates about god and purely focus on the physical-- which is to say, the aim seems to be to remove any suggestion of 'spiritual' or 'supernatural' elements from a definition of 'god' and construct your definition solely using mundane, naturalistic components. Needless to say, I think that's just silly-- unless one is going to go all Einstein & use the term 'God' as a euphemism for 'Everything that is going on in the universe' (which is clearly not the intent of most people when they settle down to examine the issue of 'god').


I realise I should clarify further and note that it is possible to falsify a metaphysical definition of God, but only in one of two ways:

1. If the definition is self-contradictory & cannot agree with its own axioms (in which case it's found to be false); or,
2. If that definition includes an intrusion from the metaphysical/supernaural into the physical/natural-- i.e. a miracle (in which case you can verify/falsify the historical even that, apparently, happened).

However, either of those methods requires people to invest a lot of time + effort + research + hard thinking to determine whether the definition is sound; which, judging by my past encounters with TN-types, doesn't seem to be something people using Ignosticism as a position are actually interested in. Which leads me to conclude that most people who claim the view do so as a way to avoid having to talk about god in the first place; they're not seeking knowledge using Ignosticism as a lens to aid learning, they're using Ignosticism as a shutter to keep things out-- like it's a crutch to support their, otherwise unjustified, disinterest in the whole topic of 'The possibility of a supreme being in the universe and how that might affect you personally'.

I hope the above ramblings explains my 'Eww' response Ignosticism. People who adopt a 'belief' as a shield against better understanding of the beautiful, fascinating, amazingly complex world around them; well, they frustrate & disappoint me.

A topic for another time is the conditions under which I could happily call myself an Ignostian. :p
----

Okay, I better see your point, CD; but running off the assumption (as Hella has correctly divined ;)) that the deity 'gives a damn' it's a short step to seeing that most everything can be considered in the light of said deity's existence.

Basically, once you assume that the deity cares about decisions you make, the question 'What kinds of decisions matter?' arises-- i.e. which decisions are trivial (like, say maybe, choosing honey or jam on your toast) and which are non-trivial (possibly, 'Should I stab this guy in the arm?').

To work out exactly which things are trivial/non-trivial requires determining what ethical school(s) of thought the deity is operating under. Ofc, there are a myriad of options out there, but ultimately they all collate into one of two categories-- a) those that suggest some kind of interest in interacting with you/your group/your species (i.e. there's some kind of relational element); and b) those that don't (i.e. where, practically speaking, all that matters following some ruleset arbitrarily imposed by the deity-- there being no relational element).

Now, I tend to assume a) (reasoning given below) but in actuality both options (personal or impersonal deity) lead to a large number of decisions coming back to adding said deity to the decision weighing process. In both cases (unless your impersonal deity has an absurdly small & exacting list of prohibitives, like 'don't eat garlic, don't chew with your mouth open & don't lick windows') you will probably have to weigh how you spend your time, your effort/energy, your skills/talents, and your money (which is effectively time+effort+skill in token form) in relation to the deity/deity's rules. You choice of job, the friends you keep, whether you have a partner/partners for life/the night, who that partner/those partners is/are, where you live, what you eat, what you do for fun, whether you wank in the shower, <insert-inane-choice-here>, the list is practically endless.
----

Whao, hold on Fuzzy! There's a lot of assumptions up there. How about you explain those a bit?

Gladly.


- In the first instance, I assume this unnamed/unknown deity actually gives a damn what we choose.

Why? Because if He/She/They/It doesn't give a damn, then why the hell should I care either?? If the idea of a RL deity is worth considering, then it's worth considering because its existence (or lack thereof) directly affects me.


- In the second instance, I assume this unnamed/unknown deity is relationally interested in me/my particular group/my particular species.

Why? Because if there's no relational aspect to this deity, if the deity is impersonal (like the Force in StarWars), then why not call it Physics and be done with all this pretense that the metaphysical exists.

- In the third instance, I assume this unnamed/unknown deity is infinite.

Why? Because if the deity we're talking about isn't all-powerful, all-knowing, all-what-have-you (or near enough as makes no effective difference as far as we are concerned) then what's the point? I mean, if a deity isn't infinite then on what basis do they get to play god to my mortal? An infinite deity is 'god' by most any definition, but a being that's 'not all powerful, just bigger than you' is only god by way of applying the rule of 'might is right'-- which quite frankly sucks, and if I found myself in that situation I'd rather go down with my puny guns blazing than kowtow to some cosmic bully.
----

Done. :p

BL: a nice example of organic thread growth, no? :D

{edit}
Apologies for the wall-o-text. I tried to break it up as much as was possible within good grammar & usage.

 

I went to church for 18 years of my life, and I can safely say that I have never felt so much of an inkling of God's presence. In fact, the reason I went to church for so long and didn't just give up was that my family were going to church, which meant that I should go to church too, as a 'family thing'. The worst thing is that I have to live at home whilst my siblings are brought up being told that, "yes, definitely a God out there, he died for you, you'll go to heaven, gay marriage is WRONG, women bishops are WRONG, just keep following this invisible, intangible being, he'll talk to you, you just need to listen properly". I hate that my siblings have no choice in the matter, and so they blindly follow what is drip-fed to them by my parents and by the church. They don't know any better; no-one has ever told them, yet, that God might not exist, that there is any other explaination for everything that is blamed upon God.

I'd like to believe in God; I'd love for there to be a reason for life, it would really make my day. Unfortunately, I just can't see any evidence for it, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. Those people I know who do believe seem to understand this, but of course, God works in mysterious ways, God is invisible and also everywhere, etc., etc.
It's not that I have a problem with a belief, because since I geniunely can't prove it wrong, standing outside the doors of a church and whining until they accept my point of view would be stupid. I do have a problem with people who blindly follow what others push down their throats, because, to me, they seem just to be naive. That really pains me to say, because my closest family members, by that reckoning, are naive and totally dogmatic.

 

I understand all the collection plates and donations; my dad was the minister of a church, and the money helps to go towards keeping the church, as a charity, going, and helping to fund outreach projects.

Religion isn't the only thing that requires faith; I have faith, for example, that a bus will arrive on time, and that the sun will rise in the morning. I have this faith because I have seen them happen before; I have created a belief from my past experiences, with which I judge what is going to happen in the future.
I used to think I understood how people can have faith in something which has no evidence for it, but I don't think I do anymore; after stopping going to church, I feel like I've been able to properly open my eyes towards this sort of thing, because I don't have this constant pressure to submit.
As far as I can tell, God appears to be a vastly amplified idea of what a person is; he bears characteristics that we see as virutes to an infinite degree, yet he can only be understood in terms of our own experiences. In the same way, a unicorn is an idea that is part horse, part narwhal, and it could be argued that there is just as much evidence for existing as there is for God. The same thing goes for ghosts, and all manner of mythical creatures, and even the Gods of other religions.
Firstly, why is God more plausible than all of these things which are commonly believed not to exist?
Secondly, why are the deities of effectively every serious religion formed in the general likeness of a human being?


edit: Also, this is on topic now, the thread became about offensive symbols/general chat on relgion. :P