Ignosticism

[robvalue]

No, that's not a typo! It's an alternative atheist perspective I stumbled upon recently. It dismisses the need to even address claims about the existence of a God, since no meaningful definition of a God has yet been given.

Any definitions I've ever heard are at best unfalsifiable and at worst incoherent. I think ignostic covers my position quite nicely. What you guys reckon? Here's a link for more info:

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

[abaris]

Honestly, I don't see the need for yet another definition to complicate things even further when it comes to understanding the matter. For a very long time, following the definitions of your wiki link, I would have considered myself an apatheist, since I simply didn't give a shit.

But my problem lies with these definitions.

Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions that accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition: atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" while agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.[8] If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" .

The borders aren't that clear cut as these fellows want to believe.

[Surgenator]

"No meaninful definition" is too vague because doesn't specify what is meaningful. From your link, the ignostic position is that no falsifiable definition of God exist. Therefore, you should waste your mental efforts trying to falsify or affirm it.

[Alex K]

I kinda like the sentiment, because a lot of time is wasted on existence discussions lacking a clear notion of what god is supposed to mean

"No meaninful definition" is too vague because doesn't specify what is meaningful. From your link, the ignostic position is that no falsifiable definition of God exist. Therefore, you should waste your mental efforts trying to falsify or affirm it.

Is this very different from agnostic?

[Surgenator]

I kinda like the sentiment, because a lot of time is wasted on existence discussions lacking a clear notion of what god is supposed to mean

"No meaninful definition" is too vague because doesn't specify what is meaningful. From your link, the ignostic position is that no falsifiable definition of God exist. Therefore, you should waste your mental efforts trying to falsify or affirm it.

Is this very different from agnostic?

The difference is mild. Agnosticism says it doesn't know. Ignosticism says mental effort is pointless. So agnosticism can entertain a proof of a God concept while ignosticism won't entrain the idea until the definition is falsifiable.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sounds more like 'apatheism', actually.

Boru

[Surgenator]

Sounds more like 'apatheism', actually.

Boru

Yes it does. The distiction might be apathesism deals with belief while ignotism deals with knowledge claims.

[Spooky]

Er what? If it works for you all the best.

[Natachan]

While I am convinced that to fully argue against of for God we first have to define what we mean by that. A lot of theists when called on their claims resort to the magical moving goalposts, redefining their god at every setback, at every rebuttal.

However I am of the position that there is a generally agreed upon idea of what a god is. If you say there is an orbiting teapot around mars I don't need to know if it's floral print china or bright green plastic to dismiss the claim. We have a fairly good idea of what the word god has traditionally meant, and that's enough for me to dismiss the claim.

[Kulthenius]

However I am of the position that there is a generally agreed upon idea of what a god is. If you say there is an orbiting teapot around mars I don't need to know if it's floral print china or bright green plastic to dismiss the claim. We have a fairly good idea of what the word god has traditionally meant, and that's enough for me to dismiss the claim.

Reminds me of Southpark, season 13, episode something called 'Go God Go XII'. In the future, warring factions fight to answer the question - who has the best name. Is it the Allied Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist Alliance, or the Unified Atheist League?