Test my belief system

[Pyrrho]

---

robvalue can answer for himself, but the distinguishing characteristic of ignosticism is the idea that the term "god" is meaningless.  Therefore, saying "god exists" is like saying "sdfadsafdjsl exits."  In other words, it is not really saying anything. 

A standard agnostic is someone who does not say that the term "god" is meaningless, but says that he or she does not know whether god exists or not.  The ignostic says that the question of "god's" existence is meaningless and therefore nothing is being asked when one utters, "does god exist?"

To give more details, to the question "Does god exist?"

Theist: Yes.

Agnostic:   I don't know.

Weak atheist:  I do not believe god exists (and do not believe god does not exist).  (The weak atheist simply does not believe the statement "god exists" and does not affirm that god does not exist.)

Strong atheist: No.

Ignostic:  Your question is meaningless.

---

As you can see from the link to ignosticism, there is some dispute over whether ignosticism is compatible with agnosticism or some form of atheism.  Also, an ignostic may simply say he or she is an atheist when asked such things, to avoid having to explain his or her position and to give a simple answer that gives at least an approximation of their position (that is, it is more akin to atheism than theism).

Bold Mine:

This is where I was getting confused because it seems like a person could be both.

To take a position on the bolded part would automatically be controversial.  However, I can uncontroversially say this about the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism:  Even if they are compatible with each other, agnosticism does not entail ignosticism.  One can easily be an agnostic without being an ignostic. If one takes the position that the word "god" is meaningful and one does not know whether a god exists or not, one is an agnostic and not an ignostic.

The essential feature of an ignostic is the idea that the word "god" is not meaningful.  If one is consistent on that, one will not say any of the following:

• "God exists."
  
• "God does not exist."
  
• "I do not know if god exists or not."
  

In all of those sentences, the word "god" is used as though it is meaningful.  Of course, as I previously stated, an ignostic might give an approximate response rather than one that is technically correct, if the ignostic does not want to bother with a lengthy conversation about this.

A strict ignostic response to the question (or, from an ignostic standpoint, the pseudo-question) "Does god exist?" would be something like:

• "'God' is not a meaningful term."
  
• "What do you mean by the word 'god'?"
  

Sometimes, though, one does not want to waste time talking with people who speak gibberish, and so one might respond as though they were making sense to avoid the kinds of responses one will likely get from those ignostic responses.


And matters can get more complicated, as one could acknowledge some conceptions and uses of the term "god" as meaningful, while saying that in some other cases the term "god" is not being used meaningfully.  This makes me think of a story I have posted before.  

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34461-po...#pid984651

This is a bit of a story told by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Sometimes, a term can start out as being meaningful, but be slowly stripped of its meaning until nothing is left.