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.)
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! :
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saying the question of god is meaningless is one thing, and saying "there is no god" is quite another.
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.
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....
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"?
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.
Ok then. God is the process of existence.
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.
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.
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.
4 p.m. here in Qatar
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.
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?
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"?
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.
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
I'd like to see where the information came from that said the clocks all varied. To say that has no relevance to anything is absurd of course. It would have a great deal of relevance.
But it's always best not to believe anything, and take a wait an see attitude.
Anyway, long before I read the theory of relativity I had already constructed my own theory of time which said that time is relative to movement. But I have since amended that to time is a measurement of change.
Change exists as a real measurable phenomenon. The state of change.
Change only exists if there is a conscious mind to experience and make meaning of it.
Time is also just a man made concept.
Neither exist except in the mind of man.
Remove conscious man from the equation and "ALL" just "IS" without meaning.
Isn't that simplistic?
You could look at time from that perspective, but it is certainly something taken seriously within physics as a property of our universe that is interwoven into space. Our concept of time is just our way of understanding that particular property.
No doubt about it.
If man were to "exit," none of what you mentioned would be realized and, ergo, would "just be" with no meaning.
I'm not including the possibility of other conscious life forms in the cosmos.
As long as we (man) "exists" as a curious, conscious entity, of course you are right.
So you imply that man kind creates reality. To me that's an absurd proposition. We observe reality that exists in spite of how we interpret the observations.
So you are saying that if man did not exist the moon would not orbit the earth and the earth would not orbit the sun? Nothing would move so nothing would change?
You see, movement is change. It is not just a concept, it is a concept that references a fact.
"Change only exists if there is a conscious mind to experience and make meaning of it."
So change does not exist if there is no being to give meaning to it?
I think I read you correctly. I think you may not see the implications of what you said.
I doubt it.
I know some physicists blabber on about consciousness being a requirement of physics, but I think they are just god-babblers looking for any excuse to justify their religious delusions.
Change happened long before we existed. You acknowledge that, and say "hahaha - you still don't get it."
No, we don't - because you have failed to explain what you actually mean.
Reading later comments he made I think Quarks actual point was that of meaning, not physical reality. But even so, I don't think there is a difference. I see no meaning that we add by just being conscious. Concepts either reflect fact or imagination. We can forget looking for meaning. It is irrelevant.
What is it I don't get? You can't get away that and just leave! lol....
Explain yourself. (it's all in fun, eh?)
the problem is you take time as existing(some thing with physical presence). you are right time is "our" measurement of change, in simplest terms two positions of matter(the public it is 24hrs between 2 sun sets-it could as well be 48hrs but somebody just took it as 24hrs and in scientific circle to make a constant time it took some vibration(wave length) so that the concept will not vary with people, if it was something "existing" it would have been more easy!!
now about the clocks i said it was not relevant as all the clocks varied so drastically no meaningful inference could be made from it. again if velocity affected the wavelength or vibration(of cesium or what ever) does that mean time changes? it could only mean we have to find some other constant that does not change with velocity!!
Interesting you should mention this. Do only things with physical presence exist? Does not the behavior of a physical presence exist as part of the physical presence? Do phenomena not exist? Can you say there are only two categories: Physicality and concept?
A behavior is real. So it exists. It is part of what the physical presence is. A physical object moves and therefore changes. So time is a measurement of that change or movement.
A behavior is real. So it exists
a behavior is what matter does and as such a behavior does not exist(if you take exist as something with a physical-presence, that is having matter and location) in common parlor we use the word exist for so many things including living but i didn't use it that way.
tell me what is time then, if you think it is something existing?
concepts on the other hand does not exist. it is us-the intelligent being that conceives- for our daily activities it is easier to convey the meaning with concepts.
eg:- love is a concept- an emotion, if it existed it would have been easy to make somebody fall in love with you-just take the love from your heart and put in the other ones heart(a surgery, may be)
"A physical object moves and therefore changes. So time is a measurement of that change or movement."
actually the change is only with respect to location and nothing else
time is the two location of a matter-a dynamic concept
we are saying the same things though differently
I did a little checking about your story that the experiments are wildly varied and cannot be verified.
So. Time dilation can arise from:
1. the relative velocity of motion between two observers, or
2. the difference in their distance from a gravitational mass.
The evidence for this: Clocks on GPS satellites have to be corrected for time dilation when they are sent up or they would give a miscalculation of location. The shuttle or any space craft has to correct for time dilation. CERN has regularly done tests on time dilation in their accelerator and found they agree with SR at higher speeds closer to light.
1971 Hafele & Keating conducted tests to measure the effects of relativity on caesium clocks on aeroplanes. They were sceptical of SR. But they found that the measured results showed that the eastward clock lost 59 ns, while the westward clock gained 273 ns compared to the stationary laboratory clocks. What you read about was that Hafele "corrected" his results for the type of clocks he used. That threw the entire experiment into question. Other airplane experiments have been done since and seem to prove SR.
Muon decay is another way SR has been evaluated and it too agrees with SR. The Michelson and Morley experiments proved that the speed of light is constant in all directions relative to the source of light. What is in dispute is that it proves time dilation according to SR. But as there no moving parts in this experiment some are sceptical. Even the sceptics agree that it does prove SR in general to be correct.
Some critics claim the atomic clocks difference in time can be attributed to gravity alone. But as you see at the top of this page, gravity is part of the equation. It is not just about speed. Hence, you are going to get a lot of varying numbers depending on the specific variables. So far, SR is holding up.
"a behavior is what matter does and as such a behavior does not exist(if you take exist as something with a physical-presence, that is having matter and location) in common parlor we use the word exist for so many things including living but i didn't use it that way."
There is nothing wrong with the using the same word to apply to different contexts. We don't have enough of them so that's what we do. Perhaps we need to invent more of them. But the way we do things generally turns out fine. If we explain context we manage to communicate.
What I am arguing is that existence is not just a physical presence but anything that effects the physical world. Effects have cause and the cause/effect is physical. I'm a materialist so I am not postulating anything non-material-originated.
But the definition used by you and others is too simplistic and deletes at least one entire category. I hear so often on these pages that only physical "objects" exist, and that everything else is concept.
I have a problem with that because then you put cause into the category of mere concept and render it not "real".
Now I could accept a usage that says cause (behaviour, for example)is real but does not exist on its own as a physical object. Rather as part of it. That way separating the word real from the word exist. Noting that nothing which is unreal can exist. I think that is accurate.
I thinks it is clumsy, lazy, and inaccurate to say cause does not exist or even that a concept does not exist. It does exist as a physical pattern in the brain. But it may not exist outside that reality. What is so hard about explaining context? It is reductionist to want simplistic categories that do not fully explain the situation.
A concept can reflect real or imagined phenomena. The imagined phenomena do not affect the material world directly. An animal with the head of a lion and the body of a horse is not a real nor existing thing. So the thought alone does not reflect reality and such imagined animals have no effect on the material world. If you want to make an animal with the head of a lion and the body of a horse you have to take concept to genetics and create one. You have to "do" something. Action is real, not just a concept. You can argue that it does not exist "as a physical object" but then you have defined your context which is fine. Just saying it does not exist leaves the context up in the air and "non-existent."
"tell me what is time then, if you think it is something existing?"
A real phenomenon, meaning it effects the material world directly. It is related to distance and speed. As in physics, it is more correctly spacetime. or space/time. The two cannot be separated.
"actually the change is only with respect to location and nothing else
time is the two location of a matter-a dynamic concept
we are saying the same things though differently"
Well no. Any action is time related so change can be relative to cutting your fingernails or growing hair. It is not just about location. It is about action.
sorry, i can only echo qwark
you don't get it, do you?
"There is nothing wrong with the using the same word to apply to different contexts"
you said: “yes except that then we won't be able to convey ideas consistently and unambiguously.”
You don’t get the concept of context, do you?
"says cause (behaviour, for example)is real"
“You said: cause is not something that exists, cause is what something does- it is what an object does. when i run there is no running that exists, i do the running-a verb.”
It exists in the form of a physical action which you the material object is doing. So yes, running is a real phenomena. No danger anyone is going to think it is an object. Holy shit....
“time is a concept- our 24hrs is considered the time between two sunsets or risings and that is all. the 24hrs is arbitrarily taken. there is nothing to say it should not be say 20 or 29 hours. it is a concept developed by humans to facilitate transactions.
what you do is reification- bringing concepts into existence or in the common parlance personify. that is just irrational and that is what believers do..”
No need to curse at me.
No one is going to personify running as an object. That’s absurd. No one is going to personify time. You are confusing time with how we perceive it. It is action and distance. It is space. It is real. Please learn how to discern proper context.
No. I don't get irrationality. That's very true.
"There is nothing wrong with the using the same word to apply to different contexts"
yes except that then we won't be able to convey ideas consistently and unambiguously.
"says cause (behaviour, for example)is real"
cause is not something that exists, cause is what something does- it is what an object does. when i run there is no running that exists, i do the running-a verb.
time is a concept- our 24hrs is considered the time between two sunsets or risings and that is all. the 24hrs is arbitrarily taken. there is nothing to say it should not be say 20 or 29 hours. it is a concept developed by humans to facilitate transactions.
what you do is reification- bringing concepts into existence or in the common parlance personify. that is just irrational and that is what believers do...
We don't know that and in fact there are indications that time is independent of physics.
Experiments with photon entanglement by Antoine Suarez actually trying to prove the existence of an outside force.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s … ts/suarez/
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Not to worry. I also prefer to be 'at one' with people. I'd be interested in knowing which definition you found.
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.
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.
if ignostism means not wasting your time on a concept called God, i'm happily CONVERTING now.
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.
The irony/parody in there is too funny -considering the credit for the term was given to a rabbi of a "humanistic Judaism".
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.
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.
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!
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..
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.
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.
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.
touchy, touchy DJ: so emotional! lol :
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! :
"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)
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...:
Qwark...the "ignostic" hath spoken. :
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.
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?
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."
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.
Just back on the original topic,
EVERYONE believes (or should believe) in Resurrection.
It's scientific! I think
by Cattleprod Media7 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not...
by augustine725 years ago
Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?
by daeemomin8 years ago
CONGRATULATING AN ATHEISTNormally, when I meet an atheist, the first thing I like to do is to congratulate him and say, " My special congratulations to you", because most of the people who believe in God are...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
by Link101033 years ago
I can understand the positives of putting your faith in such and such religion, which is why I do not think religion as a whole should be completely eradicated, however in this day and age I honestly wouldn't mind if it...
by nonto215 years ago
God is a genicidal maniac and his record makes Hitler look like a saint. Now I'm not trying to start a haulocaust debate, I'm just comparing one maniac to another. God killed way more people than any human ever could,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.