Just thought some atheists out there would find this somewhat appealing. I find it even a bit stronger that atheism, since atheism atleast accepts some definition of god, then rejects it.


Taken from the wikipedia page:

Ignosticism is a word coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine to indicate one of two related views about the existence of God.

The first view is that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.

The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by God?" before proclaiming the concept meaningless.

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.[3] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[4]

Like Ayer, Theodore Drange sees atheism and agnosticism as positions which accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition; atheists judge it to be "false or probably false" and agnostics consider it to be inconclusive until further evidence is met.[6] If Drange's definitions are accepted, ignostics are neither atheists nor agnostics. 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' ".

So an ignostic does not see any meaning if "god exists?" Wouldn't an ignostic not find anything meaning in anything than?

I just don't understand the basis behind this idea. I mean those religions do find the existance of god meaningful, but whether the fact that god exists or not is meaningful doesn't automatically rule it out.

God could exist, and that could mean jack shit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I could see how it could be appealing to strong atheists, but don't see how it could ever rule out or dominate over the other three '-isms'.

Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism

It just doesn't seem like we could do away with those titles and still be able to differentiate the different viewpoints of those three.

Even if you took the Ignostic position, it seems like you'd have to deal with the phenomenon of why other people subscribe to their beliefs or hold steadfast to what they don't believe in. You couldn't just do away with the titles entirely if there were still billions of other human beings using it to shape their worldviews, thereby causing an effect on the world you live in.

Unfortunately, there'd still be issues at hand. You'd still have to contend with the fact that although "God exists" holds no meaning, and therefore there isn't a position to take either way - the majority of the world doesn't share that sentiment, and defines themselves by what best describes their beliefs - atheism, agnosticism, theism, etc.

All that said ... titles, schmitles. Believer/Unbeliever works well for me. Agnostics fall into the first category for even entertaining the idea. ;)

So an ignostic does not see any meaning if "god exists?" Wouldn't an ignostic not find anything meaning in anything than?

I just don't understand the basis behind this idea. I mean those religions do find the existance of god meaningful, but whether the fact that god exists or not is meaningful doesn't automatically rule it out.

God could exist, and that could mean jack shit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No, an ignostic finds the statement 'god exists' or 'god doesn't exist' as meaningless, because the term god is unfounded and has no coherent definition:


As God means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead.

A theistic child's concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of God: a big powerful man in the sky responsible for certain matters.[8] This anthropomorphic divine conception has been rejected by Spinoza, as well as by Feuerbach in The Essence of Christianity (1841).

A theologian's concept is more complex and abstract, often involving such concepts as first cause, sustainer, and unmoved mover and claiming such attributes for God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. To the ignostic these abstractions, taken singly or in combination, cannot be said to be false; rather, they are muddled, self-contradictory, linguistically empty, or perhaps poetic. Hence, one cannot meaningfully expound on the existence or nonexistence of God.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

The consistent ignostic, therefore, awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

Ok I understand what you mean, but i don't really think it relates to atheism or theism like your saying though. If you were an ignostic, you would still have to be an atheist or a theist, it just seems to me like adding on another label on top of it.

How I understand what your saying is that Ignosticism means first understanding what a persons view of god is before argueing it.

If I'm wrong please explain it to me, but it seems like just a fancy word for how the individual person views god.

Though an ignosticism might, in some ways, fall back into atheism, an atheist would even claim 'I have no belief in god' or 'god does not exist' therefore claiming that the term 'god' has some coherent meaning to it. An ignostic would claim that any such definition of 'god' is often incoherent, incongruent with other definitions, or simply unfounded. I think the last example is the most important, that any definition of god is unfounded and simply made up by the human imagination.

Though an ignosticism might, in some ways, fall back into atheism, an atheist would even claim 'I have no belief in god' or 'god does not exist' therefore claiming that the term 'god' has some coherent meaning to it. An ignostic would claim that any such definition of 'god' is often incoherent, incongruent with other definitions, or simply unfounded. I think the last example is the most important, that any definition of god is unfounded and simply made up by the human imagination.

Ok, just to clarify...

The term ignosticism refers specifically to the the idea of god?