Are you an igtheist?

by Abaddon 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    We've seen it before; the pages long debates where there is a theistic lobby and an agnostic or atheistic lobby, and where because the discussion is approached from completely different paradigms by the participants, they don't understand or accept the objections or point being argued over.

    I found an interesting new word today;

    Igtheist

    Igtheists can be defined as "those who argue that theistic language makes no sense and therefore they cannot understand what theists are talking about."

    I rather like it; what thinkest thou?

  • caspian
    caspian

    I had to look it up

    Igtheists are those who argue that theistic language makes no sense
    and therefore they cannot understand what theists are talking
    about. The term was ... He moves away from atheism, which denies
    that there is any evidence to prove or demonstrate that God exists,
    to a position where one is ignorant (hence <ital> ig <ital>) of what
    is meant by theists. He points out that theological language tends
    to be murky, and that the God language in particular ranges from the
    symbolic terms used by the theologian Paul Tillich (God is
    the 'ground of being') to the metaphorical (God is 'creator' of the
    universe) to the anthropomorphic (as in the Bible). Those God
    concepts are made more confusing by the arguments that God
    is 'unknowlable' or 'transcends' human knowledge but is 'revealed'
    to specific humans from time to time in history. He states that 'to
    talk about God in a transcendent sense is to utter indefinable, even
    nonsensical language.' (p196) Therefore, he states, 'That is why I
    can maintain, as a skeptic, that I am an <ital> igtheist, <ital> for
    I do not understand what the theist is talking about. (p.107) He
    concludes, 'The question that we will have to deal with is a second
    one, whether such a being exists (whatever 'God' refers to), or
    whether it is reasonable to disbelieve in such a being.' (p. 198

    As I don't understand a single word of it. the simple answer to your question is..........

    Cas

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman

    So, if I don't understand the definition of an igtheist, does that make me an anigtheist?

  • caspian
    caspian

    Now you are really confusin.. me

  • kgfreeperson
    kgfreeperson

    What a great term! I understand it perfectly because it fits me so well! Thank you!

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    Neon: No. Wrong. Sorry.

    Anigtheism refers to an absense of igtheists as distinct from not understanding the definiton of igtheist.

    If you don't understand the meaning of igtheist, I suppose using the same ad-hoc etymology you would be an igigtheist, or if you have a more widespread problem with word definitions, an iglogoist, namely someone who is ignorant of words.

    You are demonstrably none of these things and I do welcome the opportunity to play semantics.

    Going back to anigtheism, such a word can only have limited application, as igtheists are provable, and any absence of them is only restricted to a particular locale and time, rather than a complete absence of them.

    Developing the idea you can also have igevolutionists and igatheists; these are people who don't understand the arguments relating to evolution and the non-provability and logical unliklihood of god (not that these are the same things, QED). I can attest to their existence, and can thus make no claims to anigevolutionistism.

    I think you're onto something; I mean, who hasn't had use for a compound prefix like "pachycacopsuedo-" ('Thickbadfalse')"?

  • gumby
    gumby

    How about a "freethinker". Doesn't that cover it ALL?

    Freethinkers vs. Bright s

    Freethinkers know exactly what they mean when they use the word, freethought. It is a perfectly good umbrella word used inside the club, so to speak. It has been with us for some time. In fact, the "community of reason" is most often termed, the freethought community, a good many persons who would definitely qualify as Brights are distinctly not freethinkers.

    Out in general society, freethought is used in a multitude of ways. Most of the time non-freethinkers haven't got the slightest idea of what the word means. In fact, many religious folks we know think of themselves as freethinkers (“able to freely think my way through things” is their meaning). To others, freethought is closely linked to ideas like free love, and free spirit (nonconformist, individualist, maverick, radical, oddball, and doing exactly what you want).

    In short, socially, this term is carrying the baggage of overuse and misunderstanding. We know this for a fact. We have been dealing with social studies educators concerning the topic of “freethought history” for about eight years!

    Bright is an invented noun, a neologism. It is fresh, free, and unencumbered. It has a good shot at being a meme which will eventually pervade all of society.

    Gumby

  • SYN
    SYN

    Hi Gumby, where did you get that text from? It's terribly interesting!

    And it is true that most people use extremely vague language to describe their version of God.

    Whenever I have discussions of the sort mentioned in Abbadon's post I always ask people to clearly delineate exactly what/who they think God is. Most people anthropomorphisize (SP?) straight away, but then again, most people I discuss this topic with are Christian, so it becomes sort of an ingrained way of thought, I suppose.

  • NeonMadman
    NeonMadman
    an iglogoist, namely someone who is ignorant of words.

    Gee, I would have thought that was someone who studied Eskimo homes...

  • xjw_b12
    xjw_b12

    After reading that I think I wll call myself an Ug-theist

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit