Anyone here a Category 7?

[Angrboda]

My understanding is that ignosticism can mean two things. That definitions of God aren't, or that it doesn't matter period. Regarding the first, the complaint seems to be that in the case of God, the definition is slippery and indeterminate. But the problem is that all language is like that. Just because we can't have an exact definition which everybody unambiguously agrees upon doesn't mean we lack an adequately defined common understanding from which we can work. That just seems like the fallacy of the beard on steroids. So I'm in Khem's camp, even if I don't necessarily see it as a rhetorical device. I think it's just a confusion masquerading as an important point.

---

There is no concept of god that isn't, in some way, relatable to human beings as significantly "like us" (so that we might understand why nature does what it does..what motives the wind and the rain to feed us or starve us, to put out the fire or burn down our settlement) even if it's argued to be different in so many other ways.  Like them...believers often contend that -we- are supernatural beings.  

The god of Neo-Platonism comes close, at the least, though to the degree that it does, I would also argue that it is not God.