Mainly because the term is new to me. — Tom Storm

From wiki:
Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

I would be interested in your opinion of the terms described in the wiki link above and how they may or may not relate to you when you consider the OP in terms of 'An agnostics perspective.'

Thanks, yes I did look it up and I have encountered it before but promptly forgotten it. Yes, I have often stated that the idea of god to me isn't coherent or clear enough to be engaged with in a meaningful way. God is like a Rorschach inkblot over which cultures and individuals seem to 'see' what they like. Now there are some theists (perhaps from apophatic traditions) who would not resent this description and be quite content with the notion that god is unknowable and incomprehensible to mortals.

Yep, I find that my atheism often reaches an ignostic/igtheism level, when I have to listen to the latest creationist attempt to defibrillate god posits. But I then have to regroup and resist my ignositc tendency, so that I can try to engage constructively, with the latest creationist conflation.

Empirical evidence for the supernatural is a contradictory notion because that which is sensed must be by definition natural. — Hanover

My point isn't to identify what is supernatural or not (or even what counts as evidence) just that you can find seemingly reliable people who claim to have had all sorts of bizarre experiences, so there's not much the rest of us can take from a personal experience argument.

The only way I could see empirical evidence as being evidence of God's existence would be in the indirect sense, as is the fact that existence exists points to something creating that existence. — Hanover

Is this right? Surely you are not ruling out the possibility that god could appear empirically to all of us as they have done in stories/scripture?

Much time is spent psychoanalyzing the theist, perhaps because he seems so obviously wrong to the atheist that an explanation must be arrived at for why an otherwise intellgent person would take it seriously. But this is me psychoanalyzing the atheist. My guess is that we're both part right and part wrong here. — Hanover

I'm not psychoanalyzing anyone, I hope. Psychoanalysis is just another faith based belief system. :wink: I was simply making the common sense observation that most people believe in god because they are brought up that way - groomed by parents, family, culture. But as an atheist I don't hold to the view that belief in god is obviously wrong. My atheism is probably derived by aesthetic considerations and the simple lack of an ability to believe. Reasoning is post hoc.

What is interesting to me is how seriously the atheists take these conversations. You can't seem to have a thread about theism without the atheists being sure to enter the conversation and passionately objecting, some more respectfully than others — Hanover

It's a serious subject, right? Especially when you consider that for atheists, many of the world's key problems are either created by or intensified by a fiction people call God. (Let's not list all those countries with appalling expressions of religion again.) If theists did not want to influence abortion laws, women's rights, gay rights, access to contraception, environmental protections, what book we can read, etc, I don't think the matter would interest many atheists.

It's probably also worth mentioning that most atheists, myself included, rarely have reason to talk about theism/atheism. I know in America it isn't very safe to be openly atheist. Especially outside of urban cosmopolitanism. This is the only place where I have spoken of atheism in many years, so it's not really a part of my daily life (except as my implicit or enacted worldview). Much of my critique of religion actually comes from Christian religious writers like Bentley Hart and Shelby Spong.

Often the conversation turns toward a discussion of childhood trauma dealing with religion, prior episodes of social ostracism arising from religious institutions, and other bad acts of religion. — Hanover

Survivors of fundamentalist creeds tend to fall into this category. I consider myself fortunate to have been brought up within a liberal tradition of Christianity which saw the Bible as a series of myths designed to make a broader point.

In general I think what you have said about religion on this forum is reasonable and laudable.

Atheists don't make up religions. Religious leaders do. They box up God, Gods, or whatever. Atheists question these stories or 'boxes'. — praxis

You have misunderstood and misused my metaphor. You should come up with your own.

You have misunderstood and misused my metaphor. — T Clark

That's a serious accusation and being so deserving of an explanation.

Just interested on your attraction to the labels agnostic atheist, as an accurate combination — universeness

I completely failed to answer this. Sorry.

This definition is important to me because of the endless confusion people have about agnosticism vis-à-vis atheism. I think if you can incorporate both and explain the context of knowledge versus belief, you have a better persuasive platform. In discussing atheism with theists, I try to avoid introducing new terms.

I think if you can incorporate both and explain the context of knowledge versus belief, you have a better persuasive platform. In discussing atheism with theists, I try to avoid introducing new terms. — Tom Storm

You might like this presentation by Matt Dillahunty on belief vs knowledge:

I've seen it. Not sure how sound he is on philosophy but I know he draws from Susan Haack and David Hume. But as an autodidact, he can be a bit cocksure.

That's a serious accusation — praxis

I don't consider people misunderstanding something I've said as particularly serious. It happens all the time. I'm sure it happens to you too.

Atheists don't make up religions. Religious leaders do. They box up God, Gods, or whatever. Atheists question these stories or 'boxes'. — praxis

You have misunderstood and misused my metaphor. You should come up with your own. — T Clark

I had some trouble with it myself.

Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly. — T Clark

I've never, that I can recall, attempted to box or stack a god. I disbelieve in all the ones I've heard of, and the one that is most frequent subject of discussions - and my rejection - is that jumped-up tribal deity we know only from a big book Christians revere as infallible truth. Or claim to believe, even while they deny that what's written there means what is written there. Apparently it's hard to understand, but at least it's available for everyone to read now, and judge.

What did you mean by atheist-made boxes?

I don't deny the possible existence of a something that humans intuitively suspect orders the universe, or whatever - I just don't count that among the gods that called gods.

What did you by atheist-made boxes? — Vera Mont

Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly. — T Clark

I think this works - TC seems to be saying that atheists twist ideas of god into distortions and then use those distortions as evidence that God is a problematic idea. In other words, it's a variation on a straw man argument.

My point isn't to identify what is supernatural or not (or even what counts as evidence) just that you can find seemingly reliable people who claim to have had all sorts of bizarre experiences, so there's not much the rest of us can take from a personal experience argument. — Tom Storm

I was being less generous in that regard and I would insist, for example, that if someone's account violates physical laws, then I would discount their account as unreliable. It's why we use photographs, DNA, and all sorts of CSI methods to prove things. We need to do the same in all avenues of our life. So if you say the sea parted, I'd discount it.

This is to say, I'm not willing to give a pass to people who think faith is just a certain type of stubborness that refuses to listen to reason when those reasons aren't consistent with previously held conclusions. It would be nice for me to allow room for those to believe in a 6 day creation, but the truth is that belief is utter bullshit.

Is this right? Surely you are not ruling out the possibility that god could appear empirically to all of us as they have done in stories/scripture? — Tom Storm

I am ruling that out. A corporeal god creates all sorts of theological problems. I think when we start getting into literal interpretations of scripture and anthropomorphic descriptions of God, the atheist ridicule properly applies. If God is somewhere specific, I have the right to ask for his address, put him on a scale and weigh him, take a biopsy, and kick him in the shins. That's what physical means. If you say you saw God, I would say you might have seen a cloud and felt something spiritual, but God wasn't the cloud.

I was simply making the common sense observation that most people believe in god because they are brought up that way - groomed by parents, family, culture — Tom Storm

A theist who can't recognize that his beliefs are likely as they are due to his parent's beliefs is hard to take seriously. That has to be dealt with reasonably, which means either you accept there are multiple paths to the same destination and appreciate that your chosen path has something to do with it being paved by those around you, or else be forced to arrive at the incredible conclusion that you found the truth independently and it just coindentally was the exact same thing you were being told your whole life.

I don't see religion as a sanctuary from reason for those needing comfort from reality. If that is what it is, then the atheists are right to scoff at the theists.

I think this works - TC seems to be saying that atheists twist ideas of god into distortions and then use those distortions as evidence that God is a problematic idea. In other words, it's a variation on a straw man argument. — Tom Storm

How can I twist and distort the idea in someone else's head? I can respond only to what they describe and recount. If I give a false version of the theist's account, he's right there to correct me and point to the source of accurate information. Incidentally, does any version of the Christian god stack neatly?

TC seems to be saying that atheists twist ideas of god into distortions and then use those distortions as evidence that God is a problematic idea. In other words, it's a variation on a straw man argument. — Tom Storm

Now that I think about it a bit more, I think Clark may be saying something different. Basically that God is ineffable so any dumb atheist that comes along with their boxy reason will be invariably off the mark. God cannot fit in a box. The believers know that. Atheists are too clueless to grasp this wonderous truth.

Is that about right, @T Clark ?

I've never, that I can recall, attempted to box or stack a god. I disbelieve in all the ones I've heard of, and the one that is most frequent subject of discussions - and my rejection - is that jumped-up tribal deity we know only from a big book Christians revere as infallible truth. — Vera Mont

Ironically, in denying my point, you've demonstrated it. Probably the most obvious and one of the most egregious examples of atheists putting theistic beliefs into boxes is equating theism with fundamentalist Christianity. Which is what you have done here.

@Wayfarer brought this quote to my attention and I use is whenever I can. It's from St. Augustine, one of fathers of the Catholic Church. It was written in 415 AD:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? — St. Augustine

I am ruling that out. A corporeal god creates all sorts of theological problems. I think when we start getting into literal interpretations of scripture and anthropomorphic descriptions of God, the atheist ridicule properly applies. — Hanover

I find this very interesting. Do you think this comes from a Jewish perspective?

A theist who can't recognize that his beliefs are likely as they are due to his parent's beliefs is hard to take seriously. — Hanover

Fair.

I was being less generous in that regard and I would insist, for example, that if someone's account violates physical laws, then I would discount their account as unreliable. — Hanover

Also interesting. I know Christians who hold this and think all the miracle stories in the Bible are nonsense.

If God is somewhere specific, I have the right to ask for his address, put him on a scale and weigh him, take a biopsy, and kick him in the shins. That's what physical means. — Hanover

I would have though that if god wants to be encountered in a physical realm then god can do this. But perhaps not for a biopsy or a stool sample.

Basically that God is ineffable so any dumb atheist that comes along with their boxy reason will be invariably off the mark — praxis

Indeed. I include that in what I said earlier. Perhaps an unintentional straw man argument.

Incidentally, does any version of the Christian god stack neatly? — Vera Mont

Depends who you talk to. I'm not in the worship business so I can't help with that.

Now that I think about it a bit more, I think Clark may be saying something different. Basically that God is ineffable so any dumb atheist that comes along with their boxy reason will be invariably off the mark. God cannot fit in a box. The believers know that. Atheists are too clueless to grasp this wonderous truth. — praxis

Ahem...

Indeed. I include that in what I said earlier. Perhaps an unintentional straw man argument. — Tom Storm

The problem is that they're all strawmen. Every God ever preached about is a strawman and not the REAL God. God is a boxed-up strawman. Atheists question these boxes of strawmen. They don't question what is beyond the boxes when questioning theistic claims, and they don't make up their own boxes of strawmen.

The problem is that they're all strawmen. — praxis

Then Aquinas and Christopher Hitchens are not so different. :joke:

They don't question what is beyond the boxes when questioning theistic claims. — praxis

Beyond the boxes? Sounds like an old movie of the week title. If you are referring to god as 'god is in itself' then I would suggest most atheists do question this too. Perhaps you mean something else?

equating theism with fundamentalist Christianity. Which is what you have done here. — T Clark

No. I have said that the god most frequently referred-to in discussions is the one depicted in the Bible. Do non-fundamentalist Christians draw their understanding of their god from some other source that I can consult? Then they should cite those sources during the discussion.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. — T Clark

I never called the writers of scripture unlearned. I have no record of their educational backgrounds. Is he not referring to that selfsame Bible? Perhaps the theologians that have come to prominence since the move to Rome had other reference material. I Only said I get my image of their god from that book. I'm not sure what other scriptures Augustine consulted, but I don't remember being more impressed with his god than Matthew's. (Granted, I read him and Aquinas quite a long time ago and forgotten everything except that 1. Aquinas was more literary and 2. neither of them convinced me, even though I was more open to persuasion in my youth.)

Atheists question these boxes of strawmen. They don't question what is beyond the boxes when questioning theistic claims. — praxis

Okay, you're on!
What is beyond these boxes of theistic claims that should be considered?
If all gods described in all holy books and pulpits are of straw,
What god is made of something else?
What is that god made of?
How can you know and how can I find out?

I did ask, in one of the disappeared threads: If the bible and the priests are not telling the truth about god, what sources do?

Atheists are too clueless to grasp this wonderous truth. — praxis

Not all of them. Many internet atheists, and certainly the cadre of ‘new atheist’ authors were, but there are very perceptive atheists who know what they’re rejecting. (I’m thinking Jean Paul Sartre and other atheist existentialists.)

The only reason that religion works is because God is ineffable and requires some sort of **special access** unavailable to the common folk. Do religious authorities present God or the ineffable? How can they if it is beyond words and mundane experience. Followers must rely on faith. They must have faith in the words (strawmen) of their leaders.

No. I have said that the god most frequently referred-to in discussions is the one depicted in the Bible. Do non-fundamentalist Christians draw their understanding of their god from some other source that I can consult? Then they should cite those sources during the discussion. — Vera Mont

You called God "that jumped-up tribal deity we know only from a big book Christians revere as infallible truth." You can't not know that most Christians don't see the bible as infallible. St. Augustine didn't 1,600 years ago. The Pope doesn't.

I never called the writers of scripture unlearned. I have no record of their educational backgrounds. Is he not referring to that selfsame Bible? Perhaps the theologians that have come to prominence since the move to Rome had other reference material. I Only said I get my image of their god from that book. I'm not sure what other scriptures Augustine consulted, but I don't remember being more impressed with his god than Matthew's. (Granted, I read him and Aquinas quite a long time ago and forgotten everything except that 1. Aquinas was more literary and 2. neither of them convinced me, even though I was more open to persuasion in my youth.) — Vera Mont

You're arguing with a man who's been dead for 1592 years.

You're arguing with a man who's been dead for 1592 years. — T Clark

You sure don't look it!

You can't not know that most Christians don't see the bible as infallible. St. Augustine didn't 1,600 years ago. The Pope doesn't.

Gee, one's a saint and the other's infallibe...
And yet that scripture is the source of their belief in sin, Jesus, resurrection and eternal life. Cherry-picking is not a modern practice.
Are there alternate sources for a description of that Christian god, or not? Is there an alternate, more reliable account of the roots of Christianity?

Do religious authorities present God or the ineffable? How can they if it is beyond words and mundane experience. Followers must rely on faith. They must have faith in the words (strawmen) of their leaders. — praxis

And that's what atheists reject. The ineffable doesn't need great big piles of filigreed stonework, or Indian converts, or red letter days to glorify it.

And yet that fallible scripture is the source of their belief in sin, Jesus, resurrection and eternal life. Cherry-picking is not a modern practice.
Are there alternate sources for a description of that Christian god, or not? Is there an alternate, more reliable account of the roots of Christianity? — Vera Mont

I'm not a good source to answer questions about the origin of Christian beliefs. I was only responding to your contention that Christians consider the bible "infallible truth." Most don't. That's all I said.

And that's what atheists reject. The ineffable doesn't need great big piles of filigreed stonework, or Indian converts, or red letter days to glorify it. — Vera Mont

Yes.

@T Clark seems to be claiming, unless I'm misinterpreting him, that believers only believe in the ineffable, not anything particular, and not the words that are preached to them. Atheists come up with the particulars, all the words, the so-called 'boxes'.

That doesn't seem true, of course.