Ignosticism (per Wikipedia):
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?
Quote: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?
