jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (85 posts)

Atheist conversion

  1. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    I recently noted that a prominent Atheist on Hubpages has "converted" to ignosticism.

    If you are one (atheist), would you consider doing the same? Why?




    (I guess atheism is not a permanent state of being after all.) cool

    1. Paraglider profile image89
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who?

      1. dingdong profile image60
        dingdongposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I second this.

    2. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Aka:
      lolol...ya finally figured out what I am.
      I was once a "born again" christian. Education freed me to become an atheist...then further education turned me to "ignosticism!"
      I thought you'd figured that out long ago when I kept asking of those who mention the word "god" to pls define it for me before I could, intellectually" respond.
      We "ignostics" don't accept the notion of "atheism."
      to "us" it cannot exist.
      Now ya know!  smile:
      Qwark

      1. aka-dj profile image80
        aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for your admission.

        I only learned of the word, and it's meaning recently.

        We all DO wear titles (of sorts) after all, don't we? We all belong to a group, even if by default.

        1. qwark profile image58
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Aka:
          Yep, that's a fer sure  smile:
          Qwark

    3. profile image0
      zampanoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      you agnored the starting a in Ignosticism, wich by the way is not a religion.
      You don't convert to "ignoticism".
      You become agnostic as a matter of fact.
      There's no such thing as "permanent" whatever.

  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago

    I'm an atheist and ignostic. No the spelling is correct. Look it up if you are interested. No, I don't see myself converting to anything unless s god pops it's head out of the sky and say hi. I'll likely be Zeus, of course. wink

  3. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago

    Oh, and if he "converted" to ignosticism, not agnosticism, then he didn't convert to anything. He is just saying the question of whether a god exists or not is meaningless.

  4. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Saying the question of god is meaningless is one thing, and saying "there is no god" is quite another.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image62
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What do you understand these terms to mean dj? And I have always said I will cheerfully change my tune if some evidence presented itself. It never has.

      Nor has anyone satisfactorily defined this god thing. Hence the conversion.

      1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
        Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Ok. So let's start as ignosticism suggests, by defining the word god.

        For the most it is easy. Would you all agree that you could bring it all down to saying god is that which created/produced all this? I mean the universe, man kind, etc.

        Most people besides polytheists who believe in many gods who are super beings, but not necessarily the creators of the universe, and Pagans, use the above definition of a god.

        So if you bring the word down to it's root, creator of all things, then I can prove it exists.

        Remember I am an atheist, materialist and ignostic.

        So, everyone can agree we exist. We would all agree we didn't always exist.

        We also have to agree that something must have always existed. After all, if there ever a time nothing at all existed, nothing would exist now.

        So now we have two parts to the definition. God is that which created all this, and something must have always existed or we wouldn't.

        Since we have not always existed, something by definition, had to create us and it has been eternal.

        So this proves a god exists by the definition I gave.

        Now the kicker is, the definition does not prove the god is or is not a conscious being.

        Therefore there are two alternatives. God is or is not a conscious being.

        We can not prove a conscious super being exists. But we can prove nature exists, and through science, that energy/matter are eternal in one form or another. Energy and mass can not be created or destroyed as per the laws of conservation. But both can be transformed, and through science we know their transformations lead to a creative process.

        So we have evidence that god is nature, so to speak, though not conscious.

        That does not prove a conscious god does not exist anyway. But it shows that there is an alternative to a conscious god, or creator/producer of all things. One we have evidence of, the other we do not. We know for a fact nature exists.

        There is no reason for any definition of the word god to include consciousness by default, even though most if not all have so far been considered conscious by their believers.

        The idea that nature itself is god is Pantheism. So are you ready to convert? lol....

        1. Mark Knowles profile image62
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is not an adequate definition. we already have a perfectly good word to describe this. The word is, "Existence."

          And you are dodging around using theistic nonsense. Is it "creator" or "producer" or "creator/producer"? wink

          In any case - the term "creator" implies personality. I cannot find one dictionary definition that does not apply the term "creator" to a person.

          "a person who grows or makes or invents things"

          It is never applied to an inanimate object or thing - so you are in fact saying "creator" is a person - which is unsubstantiated nonsense. If you are saying "existence" is "creator" then OK - but this is not a god - is it?

          So - no - not convinced or ready to convert based on semantics and redefining words.

          Existence exists - yes. What is wrong with this word exactly? Existence has always existed and the physical laws such as gravity that apply in this existence caused us to be. 

          Now define god.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
            Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ok then. God is the process of existence. wink

            1. Mark Knowles profile image62
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But we already have three perfectly good words for that - "process of existence." You might as well say, "God is lightwaves."  This is a meaningless definition again. Plus - I am not certain "process" is an appropriate word for this. "Action" might be better. wink

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So as we can see, there can never be a definition of god that will satisfy everyone. So the word is completely subjective and meaningless.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image62
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  This is my current position. I am open to changing it though.

                  1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's your story and you're sticking to it. lol...

        2. Paraglider profile image89
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is the common fallacy that somehow time is linear, infinite and independent of the Universe, whereas time is in fact a property of the Universe.

          1. profile image0
            jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            what is time?

            1. Paraglider profile image89
              Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              4 p.m. here in Qatar wink


              I can't give you a definition of time. But the classic view of time as the linear phenomenon we observe on Earth doesn't hold true at extreme velocities or extreme gravitational fields.

              1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The ever changing now. wink

              2. profile image0
                jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                is not time a dynamic concept we use to describe the two static position of an object?
                is it not linear in the sense that changing the position back will not make time move backwards?
                infinite???
                with out at least two objects there is no time.
                so how can a concept be influenced by motion or attraction and so how does that change with respect to "velocities" and "gravitational fields"?

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There are two great papers on that subject. General and Special Relativity.
                  I think it is Special relativity that addresses your issue. However, tests have been done which do suggest time is different under different conditions. An atomic clock was put on the shuttle and came back with a different time than it's twin on earth, exactly as predicted.

                  But, is there a past that exists that we can go back to? I doubt it. Is there a future that is actually waiting for us? I doubt that too. To me time in human terms is change, and due to memory seems linear.

                  But there is only ever now. That is the only state of time that exists. The now. The past and future do not.

                  1. profile image0
                    jomineposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    the study, i read some where that they have not published the full study initially, and the clocks all varied very much and has no relevance.
                    relativity--or mathematical physics- people who use equations to describe that a tree exists and has no clue what  reality is, people who never define anything but goes on talking as if that means everything


                    yes time is change. as for humans it is between two sun sets(or risings)


                    yes there is only NOW. but I've to add time does not exist as no concepts can be said to exist

          2. Pcunix profile image88
            Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We don't know that and in fact there are indications that time is independent of physics.

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
              Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What are those indications?

              1. Pcunix profile image88
                Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Experiments with photon entanglement  by Antoine Suarez actually trying to prove the existence of an outside force.


                http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s … ts/suarez/

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks. This I've got to see. lol...

    2. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Most atheists just lack belief. Saying no god exists is not provable. So it is not a strong position. But saying it is meaningless if it is not falsifiable is in line with atheism.

  5. profile image0
    Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago

    Just checked the meaning of the word in wiki.

    I would say that to be an athiest is to be an ignostic. It's not a matter of conversation.

    The word atheist means not to believe in God.
    The word ignostic means someone who says that the word God is meaningless until it is defined, and until what God is is defined, one cannot ask if God exists...

    "Saying the question of god is meaningless is one thing, and saying "there is no god" is quite another."

    Actually, not true.

    To say that a word has no meaning means that the word isn't recognized and doesn't exist.

    If I said, lakjfda;lfdkjaslkfjaslkfjsda;lfkj, would you know what I meant? Would you say that the word had meaning? If you looked it up in every dictionary and it wasn't there, does it exist? At what point would you say that the word didn't exist?



    I agree. smile

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would disagree. I think it's a great word, by the definition I read. It seems to me it isn't saying there is no God, simply that no one has the faintest idea what the nature of God is. Maybe you can take it either way.

      But I don't agree with aka. I don't think the person referenced converted to anything.

      1. profile image0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        From Wiki.

        ticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

        It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

        1.The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
        2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

        1. profile image0
          just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I much    preferred the definition I googled. But I like to find points of agreement and can usually be creative in the search. I stand corrected.

          1. profile image0
            Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not to worry. I also prefer to be 'at one' with people. I'd be interested in knowing which definition you found. smile

            1. profile image0
              just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Googled ignostic definition. Opened what appeared to be the most concise definition. Didn't put much thought into it after that. Maybe I should have investigated further when I had more time.

              1. profile image0
                Sophia Angeliqueposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                smile

  6. superwags profile image81
    superwagsposted 6 years ago

    You really haven't done your homework here mate. I would probably be regarded as an atheist about the question of whether god exists (I am also athiest about fairies, unicorns and bigfoot).

    However, I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of god, if there was some proof of her/ it/ him. I just don't care enough to rant on about it, just enjoy being gently cynical about it; therefore I probably fall into the ignostic camp too.

  7. profile image0
    jomineposted 6 years ago

    if ignostism means not wasting your time on a concept called God, i'm happily CONVERTING now.

  8. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    If something is meaningless -has no meaning; no relevance for definition; discussion or no entity presently defined as g/God exists, implies the same thing. The definition of ignostism, claims it is a THEOLOGICAL position superseding that all other theological positions are "too cool" or "too assumptive". Furthermore, such a person is stating that until a thorough definition of theism is presented, that person cannot or should not define themselves under the umbrella of atheist or theist.

    By that measure, it seems the evidence is required for or against. One thing equally valid on both sides is one could say there is no g/God because there is a lack of experience. By the same token, one can say there is a g/God by the very same lack of experience. Which is where the terms Faith and Hypothesis begin. Both require "jumping in head first" to see what comes out of the testing. Which may in fact be the precise thing necessary -a thorough testing of yes/no by ALL available methods --within humanism and without humanism.

    James.

    sidebar:
    The irony/parody in there is too funny -considering the credit for the term was given to a rabbi of a "humanistic Judaism".

    James.

  9. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    I find it clearly curious that when someone uses the word "God", we all have an understanding of what the word means. If this were not so, there would be no need for the word in any vocabulary, language or dictionary.

    Trying to redefine the word is a common trait to humans. There are hundred that have changed meaning over time. This however is not a valid excuse for arguing against Him (God). Just because an adequate definition does not exist (to your satisfaction), this is the real "meaninglessness".
    Perhaps you ought to read some of fatfist's hubs. He can prove a lot of things to be opposite to what we all commonly believe. http://hubpages.com/profile/fatfist

    Mark likes to attribute semantics to just about anything he does not agree with. Point being, even if a perfectly valid definition or explanation is given, it can easily be dismissed as irrelevant, semantics or meaningless.

    If every word we use in the language we speak were to be debated on the same grounds as "god", none of us would ever be able to communicate with each other.

    One thing worth noting, that in the english language, we often don't say what we mean, but everyone around us know what we mean. It's the nature of the limitations of language.

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you. Thank you. That post clearly states the main problem I have found on this site. Instead of simply trying to communicate, it appears to be more fun to twist the obvious intent into something to belittle.

    2. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      aka:

      There are as many definitions of the word god as there are people who "imagine" it.

      All definitions are "opinions" and in todays economy they are worth about..uhhhhh...nothing!

      Qwark

      1. aka-dj profile image80
        aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's a relative statement.
        Your opinion means SOMETHING to YOU,
        as does  mine to me.
        I can understand that mine may mean nothing to you. I can live with that. Ridiculing someone else's opinion is low, as far as I'm concerned.

        BTW, the appropriate way to address me would be dj.
        AKA stands for...well, you know.. big_smile

        1. Pcunix profile image88
          Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Is it still low when the opinions are obviously illogical and impossible?

          Religious beliefs are utter nonsense and deserve nothing but scorn.  I respect and defend your right to have them, but I will always tell you what nonsense they are.

          1. aka-dj profile image80
            aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for illustrating my point!

            Conversely, I can point out the nonsense in your opinion also.Ridicule you.  Based on MY opinion, of course!

            As someone has said, "don't be too quick to ridicule someone else. If you went through exactly what they did to arrive where they are, you would see things the same as they do". Kinda like walking in someone else's shoes.

            1. Pcunix profile image88
              Pcunixposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, you cannot.  There is no nonsense in atheism.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's funny, even for atheist it always come back to the god thing, kind of like the sex thing, somehow it must be part of nature too.

          I have learned to accept god, and co create with god under my terms first. Not an exclusive fighting club of wrong translation or too lost in space terms.

          As a kid I liked silly doctor Smith in the lost in space TV show , then grew up.

        3. qwark profile image58
          qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          touchy, touchy DJ:  so emotional!  lol  smile:

          I repeat: There are as many definitions of this god thing as there are those who imagine it...and all are opinions valuable only to the imaginer.

          Pls prove me wrong.   aka dj

          ...the coffee's hot and strong, have a cup aka dj! smile:

          Qwark

          1. aka-dj profile image80
            aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "touchy, touchy DJ:  so emotional!  lol  "  NOT at all. It is a matter of courtesy.

            "I repeat: There are as many definitions of this god thing as there are those who imagine it...and all are opinions valuable only to the imaginer."

            You DID read all my latest posts, no?
            I thought I made it quite clear.

            Please, drink the coffee whilst it's hot.
            I told you a few times before, it's not my job to prove you wrong. (read my face...not emotional)

            1. qwark profile image58
              qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              aka DJ:
              Naw I didn't read all your posts.

              comments/opinions about this a "god thing" to an ignostic, have no intrinsic value for discussion since "it" can't be defined in any form but opinion.

              I AM being very very courteous in taking the time to explain the attitude of me, the "ignostic," bluntly but honestly.

              I'm imagining your face and it seems you have "calmed" down.

              Now sit back, dilute your coffee, and relax...and have a great Sunday...smile:

              Qwark...the "ignostic" hath spoken.  smile:

  10. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Concerning definition of the word "god", I believe that a shortened simplified version is quite adequate.
    Eternal, all powerful, all knowing, creator of all things seen and unseen.

    However, let it also be quite clear, that a being like that would by implication surpass ANY definition we may wish to use. We are limited by language, terminology and knowledge of that which is revealed.

    I have, by way of simplified example, used the following.
    How can anyone know me, if i do not reveal anything about myself. If I do not speak nor do anything, what kind of person am I? If I chose to reveal myself through my values, opinions, knowledge, character etc, and I affirm these traits by my actions, you will see & know ME. Take a look at some profiles on hubpages, where they provide no image, no description etc. Who are they? What are they like? There is obviously someone behind the account, but we know nothing about them UNTILL they reveal themselves as I described.

    Same with God. We need Him to reveal Himself, or else we can be excused for saying there is NOTHING (no-one)there.

    Gee whizz. I think even this will be too deep for some. hmm

    1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      All of which are idealized attributes and some of which are logically impossible.

  11. barranca profile image72
    barrancaposted 6 years ago

    I think that "God-Talk" is closer to Poetry and Art than it is to science.  God-talk is an effort to express the most general, subtle feelings about the universe as a whole.  Is the world beautiful?  Is it good?  Is it intelligent?  Can it be trusted?  Often I fall back to Wittgenstein's late position where he argues that there are many language games worth playing and each has its own syntax, meanings and rules.  "It is feeling the world as a limited whole that is mystical."  While atheism is superficially appealing from a logical positivist point of view (AJ Ayer) (religious statements are meaningless because they fail to give a clear meaning(verifiable) to a sign in the proposition), I find the position to be overly constrained and based on a single(monomaniacal?)theory of knowledge.  Wittgenstein argues in the end that there is no way to scientifically verify the verification theory itself.  Truth and meaning emerge in a variety of language games.  Hence I am open to playing a lot of different games....at least for a while.  But playing a game requires a degree of willingness to play by the rules of that particular game.  It requires faith that it is worth playing.  Einstein seemed to think god-talk what somehow meaningful.  Who am I to think I know better?

  12. qwark profile image58
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    Whew:
    If you go back and read again...what I said, what I meant WAS expressed. golly!
    I'm gonna cutr and paste here, then leave it up to you to try to figure it out.
    Here goes; "Remove conscious man from the equation and "ALL" just "IS."
    Finis   smile:
    Qwark

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey qwark. This is not said tongue in cheek. I think yours is one of the most honest stands anyone can truly take on the issue. It's the truth. All we, as a whole, can say with any certainty. Anything else is just taken on faith by someone.

      1. qwark profile image58
        qwarkposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Curious:
        I think you got my point.
        I'll take it as "no tongue-in-cheek"...lol  smile:
        Qwark

  13. aka-dj profile image80
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Just back on the original topic,

    EVERYONE believes (or should believe) in Resurrection.
    It's scientific!  I think hmm

    1. profile image0
      just_curiousposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. smile

 
working