are you an Ignostic?

"Tell me what God means to you, before asking me what I think of the idea!"

Click to expand...

Quite a few theological debates here are accompanied by a querulous chorus of complaint that no-one can assert - or deny - the existence of any deity without first saying what they mean.

This point of view tends to be swept aside in the passion of the debate. The god-botherers continue with their fact-free, highly imaginative interpretations of the universe, while the godless do what we do best, which is point and laugh at the deluded.

After all, the person who argues with a fool, can seem just as much of a fool for even bothering. So one cannot really engage and argue with god-intoxication, any more than with any other form of lunacy. It is sometimes better just to point and laugh at such foolishness, rather than to seem to take it seriously.

All good fun perhaps, but it hardly advances the discussion, or promotes mutual understanding.

Enter Ignosticism or igtheism, "the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. It asserts that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed."

Seems fair enough to me. But I doubt any believer can actually say what they mean by "the term they use to name their deity" in any coherent way.

So, can you? 'Fess up, all you soggy god-botherers, and spell it out. Define your deity so we can sensibly assess whether such a thing is even possible, let alone plausible!

how can you deride god on this thread and promote buddha-nature on the next?

Jonti said:

Define your deity so we can sensibly assess whether such a thing is even possible, let alone plausible!

Click to expand...

ten thousand posts on urban75

There's an infinite number of concepts of 'God', it being all personal and all, and I don't see why one is more right or wrong than another. So surely this is more of a problem for the atheists than the theists? I mean that's a lot of different concepts you're going to have to argue against before you can truly call yourself an atheist.

Interesting position.

I'd still call myself an atheist tho, it saves long and tedious explanation on the doorstep

how can you deride god on this thread and promote buddha-nature on the next?

Click to expand...

Because they're not the same thing for Jonti?

“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.” — Zen Master Linji (the founder of the Rinzai sect)

I’m sure you already realize that it’s not being literal. The road, the killing, and even the Buddha are symbolic.

The road is generally taken to mean the path to Enlightenment; that might be through meditation, study, prayer, or just some aspect of your way of life. Your life is your “road.” That’s fairly straightforward as far as metaphors go.

But how do you meet the Buddha on this “road?” Imagine meeting some symbolic Buddha. Would he be a great teacher that you might actually meet and follow in the real world? Could that Buddha be you yourself, having reached Enlightenment? Or maybe you have some idealized image of perfection that equates to your concept of the Buddha or Enlightenment.

Whatever your conception is of the Buddha, it’s WRONG! Now kill that image and keep practicing. This all has to do with the idea that reality is an impermanent illusion. If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.

http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670

Click to expand...

Similarly, if you believe that you have a correct image of what God means, you're wrong!

Jonti said:

Similarly, if you believe that you have a correct image of what God means, you're wrong!

Click to expand...

Including god doesn't exist!

Incidentally, the meaning of that koan is not revealed in that blurb...

I think you may need to reread the OP!

It's not asserting "god doesn't exist" just that a "coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed."

I think I used to be a bit ignostic. I think it might have been reading Richard Dawkins that snapped me out of it. The demand to "define your terms" can be a bit of a cop out. It's more interesting to accept the terms of the debate and see what the proper response should be. If you refuse to understand the concept of "god" then you will not fully understand religion and regardless of what you may think about religious beliefs, religion itself is very real.

Hey! Welcome back Knotted. It seems like a while...

Knotted said:

If you refuse to understand the concept of "god" then you will not fully understand religion and regardless of what you may think about religious beliefs, religion itself is very real.

Click to expand...

It is possible for religion to be real without managing to properly define the term god. Islam is the classic example of a religion that is decidedly cagy about pinning itself down on this question.

Al-Ghazali, the most prominent theologian in the history of Islam, went so far as to say:

"The end result ... is, in truth, that they do not know Him and that it is absolutely impossible for them to know Him."

Click to expand...

Judaism takes a similar view. Making a image of God, even in one's own mind, is idolatrous.

But how can one believe or have faith, if the object of devotion is entirely beyond human comprehension?

Jonti said:

But how can one believe or have faith, if the object of devotion is entirely beyond human comprehension?

Click to expand...

Because it is quite possible to realise that whatever god, or the absolute, or buddha, or the infinite is, WE ARE ALL IT. And it is truly the greatest miracle that god never knows himself. For the never-ending process of discovery is the universe

Jazzz said:

Because it is quite possible to realise that whatever god, or the absolute, or buddha, or the infinite is, WE ARE ALL IT. And it is truly the greatest miracle that god never knows himself. For the never-ending process of discovery is the universe

Click to expand...

In which case, all organised religions are wrong, naturally.

But at least we have at last a candidate response to Sherwin Wine's challenge that believers must present a ..."coherent definition of God ... before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed."

And here it is ...

whatever god ... is, WE ARE ALL IT.

Click to expand...

I'm unconvinced by this, as although I certainly exist, I'm not nearly so sure about you lot. And that limitation surely marks me as very significantly less than this suggested god-thingy would be, however much the notion flatters.

I'm unconvinced by this, as although I certainly exist, I'm not nearly so sure about you lot. And that limitation surely marks me as very significantly less than this suggested god-thingy would be, however much the notion flatters.

Click to expand...

Go solipsism! It'll be this year's no1 affected philosophical standpoint in bars and across dinner tables in the first quarter of the year.

When I called everyone on urban appearances whose real existence I had no proof of to speak, I got accused of being a sociopath!

Jonti said:

I'm unconvinced by this, as although I certainly exist, I'm not nearly so sure about you lot. And that limitation surely marks me as very significantly less than this suggested god-thingy would be, however much the notion flatters.

Click to expand...

Well, I post therefore I am!

And yes, you have forgotten who you are. This creates all the fun of remembering (re-membering, becoming part of the whole). If we all fully realised everything then we'd all be like the point just before the big bang. That's my definition of the absolute. It is not simply 'nothing', it contains all possibilities. However it it plainly quite inconceivable.

LBJ says that all religions are wrong. So is my version. A zen saying is, "if you open your mouth, you are wrong". Alternatively, all is correct, even Pastafarianism.

Perhaps a better answer to Jonti's conundrum is this - why is it necessary to know god to believe in him/her/it? I mean, I have really very little understanding of my computer, I have no idea how it all works. Should that mean I should not believe in it?

kyser_soze said:

Go solipsism! It'll be this year's no1 affected philosophical standpoint in bars and across dinner tables in the first quarter of the year.

When I called everyone on urban appearances whose real existence I had no proof of to speak, I got accused of being a sociopath!

Click to expand...

Biologically it's a nonsense of course. As a language using social animal, we're thoroughly interwoven with each other.

But theology must have its lonely soul.

kyser_soze said:

When I called everyone on urban appearances whose real existence I had no proof of to speak, I got accused of being a sociopath!

Click to expand...

I said it because, in the same thread, you called someone else a sociopath on similarly spurious grounds. On the basis of what you said to justify it, someone else could arguably advance that same accusation against you (say, treating people as mere constructs or appearances).

If that upset you, then maybe you should not do that yourself.

Despite the fact that it was clearly a statement based around the idea of solipsism, as had been made very plain and obvious. As opposed to the poster concerned, who'd stated 'I don't care about anything'.

It didn't upset me, more demonstrate your selective reading of a post.

kyser_soze said:

'I don't care about anything'.

Click to expand...

He didn't say that.