87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
87 points (81.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1367 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I know nothing colloquial in the concept of igtheism. Formally, by its very existence, igtheism proves that atheism can only be conditional - hence it is not even a proper concept.
I know that, formally, you can't lack a belief in a god that isn't properly defined, and I agree with you that many religions' gods aren't properly defined. But I think the colloquially definition of atheist or agnostic could still cover igtheism.
As for theists, the gods are equally undefined for atheists/agnostics. For an igtheist, beliefs of atheists/ignostics (or lack of belief) cannot be taken any more seriously than those of theists, until definitions are provided.
Take an example. There are people who say that god is nothing but merely energy. Can someone call herself an atheist if this is definition of god?
Sans definition of god, theism/atheism do not make sense.