Hullo!

New to this forum, but I've been around forums since Nov last year so some might recognize the user name if you 'get around'

Lesse, I call myself an igtheist for accuracy and atheist for political purposes, am 18 (so feel free to hit on me ), like to read, no, love to read, and I am about to become a Biology student in college.

I'm also mod and member of the Heathen Hub, which we're trying to revive, so I'd appreciate it if you had a look-see. We've got recipes.

So...Hi.

ETA: no, I didn't come here to look for members but I figured two birds one stone.

[Irreligious]

Igtheist? Explain, please.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, Fizzle.

I'm quite certain that the concept of God has not been defined properly enough to merit questions of belief or disbelief in it.

IOW instead of "Where's your evidence?" I ask "What the hell are you talking about?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Igtheism=Ignosticism

[Smellyoldgit]

Quite right.
But my God can still kick the shit out of yours!!

[Irreligious]

Fizzle wrote

I'm quite certain that the concept of God has not been defined properly enough to merit questions of belief or disbelief in it.

IOW instead of "Where's your evidence?" I ask "What the hell are you talking about?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Igtheism=Ignosticism

I see.

Well, I've tried that line of reasoning on some of the drive-by theists who have haunted this forum and it doesn't work. When one presses them for a coherent definition, they are incredulous that one could even ask such an "inane" question. When pressed further, they descend into complete mindfuck territory in which they allege that mere mortals are far too limited to "comprehend" the rapturous wonder that is God which, of course, begs the question: Then how the hell are they comprehending this enigmatic construct, let alone apprehending it to begin with?

Ultimately, it's an unsatisfying approach to engaging theists on what it is, exactly, that they are placing their faith in. However, I do see your point. Ultimately, it's all nonsense and pleading the fifth on the question of one's belief in such nonsense is honest, I think.

Irreligious wrote

I see.

Well, I've tried that line of reasoning on some of the drive-by theists who have haunted this forum and it doesn't work. When one presses them for a coherent definition, they are incredulous that one could even ask such an "inane" question. When pressed further, they descend into complete mindfuck territory in which they allege that mere mortals are far too limited to "comprehend" the rapturous wonder that is God which, of course, begs the question: Then how the hell are they comprehending this enigmatic construct, let alone apprehending it to begin with?

Ultimately, it's an unsatisfying approach to engaging theists on what it is, exactly, that they are placing their faith in. However, I do see your point. Ultimately, it's all nonsense and pleading the fifth on the question of one's belief in such nonsense is honest, I think.

(<---epic smilie.)

They don't even know what they're talking about and expect us to believe that this non-concept give them the right to decide how lives should be lived or that it actually explains anything.

"God" is the mother of all red-herring, goal-shifting, non-concepts.

[Irreligious]

Furthermore, I wish theists would admit that their conceptualization of a creator entity is a white man in the sky.

Seriously. That is the big, fat sweaty elephant in the room. Everybody knows it, yet few that I have encountered ever cops to this. If they did, it would be unavoidable to follow up with questions about what it is they are worshipping in reality. Of course, nobody really wants to go there.

That'll be the day. Of course, if it's a man, then it's not supernatural, and if it is a supernatural man-thing, then it's still hasn't defined what it is (only what it isn't; natural), what it's formed of.

I still have not found an actual definition of supernatural, only ever encountering it as the 'filler' for X gap in knowledge.

[Irreligious]

If it ain't a man, I still have to question why it is given a masculine pronoun, not to mention why it is referred to by Christians as "the Father," and alternately, "the Son." Of course, a "Holy Ghost" doesn't have to be male or female but, then again, that part of the alleged trumvirate entity is also wholly undefined. What makes something "holy," and what is "a ghost," especially in the context of a dead something that is allegedly immortal? That has always been a rather inscrutable oxymoron, as far as I'm concerned.

I've had some Christians here assure me that God is neither male nor female, in actuality (begging the question of how anyone could even know this), but that the masculine conceptualization is used to make this alleged entity more comprehensible to humans who are inherently incapable of understanding this thing anyway.

Bottom line, however, is if that's the most effective means to comprehend this alleged entity then, necessarily, that's exactly what it is to most people who claim to have a belief in it. That is, it is a "magical" man in the sky as far as they are concerned. Otherwise, it's beyond comprehension, which means that it is utterly inaccessible as a concept even.

[Irreligious]

Triumvirate. Damn, my proofreading sucks.