• मुक्त@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 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
            ·
            9 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
              9 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.

    • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Not OP, but for me it was realising I was dronegender. I could either be an atheist whose identity was valid but not “real” as I conceived it, or I could embrace a religion that said my identity was achievable. That said mind melding with a swarm was possible and I could be who I am in a physical sense and not just a personal one.

      Also I met a god. She’s nice.