• मुक्त@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • मुक्त@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.