Ignosticism, Theism, or Gnostic Atheism

[vulcanlogician]

Which theory is most true? What shortcomings (if any) do these theories have? Is someone who hasn't decided on one of these theories "years ago" missing something? Or is the correctness of each theory not so clear?

[Disagreeable]

First we have to define 'gods', 'God' and 'deity'.

[vulcanlogician]

No we don't. Not unless we are making truth-statements about things that do (or do not) exist. If I don't claim knowledge of something, I don't have to define it. That onus hangs on those who claim knowledge.

[Disagreeable]

No we don't.

Yes we do.

Not unless we are making truth-statements about things that do (or do not) exist.

All statements are truth statements about a thing or things' existence or existences.

If I don't claim knowledge of something, I don't have to define it.

We don't have to define it but it would lead to miscommunication if we did not.

That onus hangs on those who claim knowledge.

So, on nobody, then.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes we do.

No, we don't 

All statements are truth statements about a thing or things' existence or existences.

Nope 

We don't have to define it but it would lead to miscommunication if we did not.

Not our problem 

So, on nobody, then.

No it falls on Gnostics because they claim to know

[GrandizerII]

Ignosticism (per Wikipedia):

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition

If ignosticism is accurately defined by the above, then my issue with it is that theists have been all too happy to provide definitions for God clear enough to have a debate about. Sure, after providing definitions, the concept of God may still appear to be very vague, but it is given properties and it is said to do and have done things, therefore one can then make an argument against God based on the properties and actions ascribed to it by the other side.

And both theism and [gnostic] atheism have their issues, of course.

There is a fourth position that I have been thinking of a lot lately and which I term "prototheism". A lot of the makings of a God are there, but God (in the full sense of the term typically conceptualized by classical theists) is not. Not to be confused with deism (which is still a belief in some personal God).

Ultimately, it's all very relative. There are multiple various definitions for the term "God", and what may be "God" to some people is not much of "God" to others. But this means there is a problem here with the standard definitions of the word "atheism". For pantheists, for example, God is basically the universe itself and nothing more (that's my understanding at least). Atheists accept the existence of the universe, does this mean they are not atheists per pantheism? Or is it that pantheism is not really considered theism? Maybe atheism isn't just a lack of belief in God, but also a lack of conceptualizing anything that exists as God?

[Belacqua]

No we don't. Not unless we are making truth-statements about things that do (or do not) exist. If I don't claim knowledge of something, I don't have to define it. That onus hangs on those who claim knowledge.

In a sense the theologians, a long time ago, did an end run around any attempt we might make at a definition. 

You've no doubt heard of apophatic or negative theology, which simply states that God is so far beyond human understanding that any definition we attempted would be overly limited. Undefinable by definition, so to speak.

From Wikipedia:

"negative theology is as old as philosophy itself;" elements of it can be found in Plato's unwritten doctrines, while it is also present in Neo-Platonic, Gnostic and early Christian writers. A tendency to apophatic thought can also be found in Philo of Alexandria.[3]

According to Carabine, "apophasis proper" in Greek thought starts with Neo-Platonism, with its speculations about the nature of the One, culminating in the works of Proclus.[4] Carabine writes that there are two major points in the development of apophatic theology, namely the fusion of the Jewish tradition with Platonic philosophy in the writings of Philo, and the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who infused Christian thought with Neo-Platonic ideas.[4]

The Early Church Fathers were influenced by Philo,[4] and Meredith even states that Philo "is the real founder of the apophatic tradition."[5] Yet, it was with Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor,[6] whose writings shaped both Hesychasm, the contemplative tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the mystical traditions of western Europe, that apophatic theology became a central element of Christian theology and contemplative practice.[4]

[The Grand Nudger]

Gnostic atheism, naturally. I don't see a problem with it, nor would I call it a theory. There are no gods, full stop.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'd go with ignosticism - the idea that the question 'Does God exist' is inherently meaningless and can never be made meaningful. It's like asking 'What colour is Tuesday?'

Boru

[no one]

Well Mondays are blue, so, Tuesdays are obviously fuchsia.