In the end however, this is all largely academic and you can call yourself whatever you like.

Thank you very much for allowing me.

Could be that I am reading too much into it but you seem to have a dogmatic attachment to the atheist label. Additionally, you are assigning recognition to a metaphysical concept. One could just as well state that they don’t believe in fairies or space aliens. Just making the statement itself seems absurd. It is impossible to argue a rational point with an irrational attachment to a belief. This to me has always been the case when encountering provincialists. Not that I am accusing you of anything. It just seems to me that you are as heavily vested in not believing and it is still blind faith that supports those beliefs. This is not an indictment or accusation of what you believe (or don’t). I just don’t think that you understand what an Ignostic is.

I think the next time the subject of god comes up I will just smile and go on my way.

From my point of view I can honestly say that I don’t know and I don’t care to know as it has no bering on my existence. Assuming that I do, in fact, exist.

I am not an atheist, theist or polytheist. I don’t distance myself from any label as much as the concept itself.

I think it’s possible, common even, to be more than one of those things.

A theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. In the strictest sense, all people fall into one or other of those categories. Either they do believe in a god, or they don’t.

Some agnostics may say they “don’t know”, in which case they don’t believe and could be considered “agnostic atheists”. Others may say, “I think there’s a god, but I don’t know how many or what kind of god”, in which case we might call them “agnostic theists”.

In a way the situation is the same for ignostics. If you have not even found a definition of god which makes sense, then either you don’t believe in god(s) or you believe in a very ill-defined god or gods.

As I mentioned in the post, I consider myself an agnostic atheist or weak atheist.

Both depend on blind faith to support their argument.

I think this accusation only applies to strong atheists, who in practice are the minority of atheists.

In the end however, this is all largely academic and you can call yourself whatever you like.

When my path crosses a zealot on either side of the issue, first thing I ask them is; define god, regardless of wether they are a believer or not. The varying answers I get are astounding. The person usually gets very defensive about their opinion being challenged.

I view both sides as equal to each other. Both depend on blind faith to support their argument. To me that is the very definition of ignorance.

I think you exaggerate regarding atheism, but it’s true there’s a certain amount of backlash against religious culture amongst some and I can understand some people wishing to distance themselves from a label that they feel has been tarnished.

However, I don’t think that it’s fair to say that a god is inherently “unknowable”. Surely if gods are all that believers say they are, then they could (and would?) make themselves known?

My definition of Igtheism would be. How can I claim to know what is unknowable?. This best describes how I feel.

Thanks.

I see your point about ignosticism – asking rather than telling in any sense. This sounds like the polar-opposite of preaching and preaching is something that gets up my, and many of my readers’ collective noses! So I like that idea.

I’m interested in this phrase ‘local humanist’ though. Does this refer to the boundedness of humanist philosophy?

Hehe, no I meant one who lives near me rather than an Internet acquaintance.

I’m going to have to ponder a bit over a defence of the word ignostic but I think I still prefer it over igtheism or the other varieties of atheism/agnosticism that you suggest. For one thing I think the question ‘what do you mean by god?’ is more provocative, and humanistic, than the statement ‘we are all ignorant of what is meant by god’. The first is a human level query: the second is a theological statement as unsound as any other theological statement.

Also, the ‘…so we may as well…’ part of the characterisation of igtheism sounds a bit demanding; I kind of like the ignostic question because it makes sense to everyone, regardless of their actual belief system, and it works at a human level, unlike the more traditional ‘what is god?’ question. My understanding of ignosticism, which is probably wrong, is that an absolute definition of god is neither needed, nor practical; but a ‘local’ definition of what the participants mean by the word is necessary for a meaningful debate.

On a related theme, I don’t really see the problem with neologisms, or having a lot of words to denote fairly similar ideas. If we’re thinking independently then surely it’s a natural thing to happen. In fact, I don’t see the problem with just making up a word to describe your beliefs at some particular time: without going through all the rigmarole of trying to decide which label to give yourself that day.

I’ve probably strayed a bit from defending ignosticism here; in fact this defence may just have eaten itself by suggesting that coming up with a new, essentially meaningless word to describe my beliefs is a better idea.

I’m interested in this phrase ‘local humanist’ though. Does this refer to the boundedness of humanist philosophy?