“It’s worth noting that ignosticism doesn’t support atheism; at least under certain definitions. By asserting atheism you assume a definition of god that you reject. At which point the ignostic answer is to ask “what’s the atheistic definition of god?” How can you reject such an entity if you have yet to define it?”
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but ‘atheism’ is the rejection of the claim a god exists. As such, in order to properly reject such a claim, you must first have a proper definition. Otherwise you can’t be certain of what you are rejecting. That is, if you happened to define ‘god’ as the sun, atheists would (by definition) reject the existence of the sun.
If this is not the case, then the atheistic position has it’s own definition of a god, which is then rejects. Otherwise ‘atheism’ itself is undefined and illogical to accept.
The only way out of this is to say that atheism rejects the term god itself, rather than any possible thing it represents. Which to me seems a bit silly.”
At this point I tried to explain things another way.
Atheism takes no stance on how the God proposition is presented, except to say that as it is commonly presented there is no evidence to prove such a proposition, and lacking such a demonstration the proposition is prima facie false.
In other words, the validity of atheism is not dependent on the underlying semantics of how the theist chooses to represent, and ultimately, define their version of God.
Does that make sense?
So, the positive claim being made here is the theist’s claim. Mainly, that God is extant. And thus God being an object that exists, they claim to be able to derive a description of this being.
The atheist position is merely a response to this claim being presented, regardless of how the theist chooses to define their terms.
The atheist, for the sake of argument, can accept the theists proposition and take it at face value, whether or not they are ultimately true. For example, the atheist could say, sure, you believe that the Sun is god, but then, all you have is a definition with no real world value. No meaning. In order for that statement to be meaningful, we’d have access to some evidence that demonstrates the claim is true, otherwise it’s a baseless assertion.
Once supplied the definitions of the theists God, the atheist can make logical deductions to determine whether or not such a description is logically sound, whether or not it is evidenced, etc. until they have scrutinized it thoroughly enough to evaluate the proposition.
So, you see, the atheist can accept terms or reject terms because it’s less about singling out any given definition of God than it is singling out whether or not any of these definitions can be justified and, ultimately, can be verified.
As such, having evaluated the proposition and the terms supplied by the theist, the atheist says the theist has yet to meet the burden of proof, and therefore no real demonstration has been provided, thus the theist’s claims about God are baseless.
This being the case, it doesn’t appear their is any evidence to propose such a God in the first place, hence it would seem the theist position is wrong, therefore God does not exist.
Back tracking for a moment, once a definition has been supplied by the theist, this is where the ignostic becomes concerned. The ignostic points out that the description of God isn’t actually describing anything, and this is a problem. The ignostic observes that for a description to be valid, it would have to be both logically consistent and comprehensible.
Now, in theology, there are, of course, logical descriptions of God. But this doesn’t in itself justify the definition of God as true to the conditions of which it was constructed. That is, the next step in ignosticism asks whether the description provided is true because it accurately describes the thing itself (the referent, or in this case God) or whether it’s true because it meets all the requisites of a logical conceptualization.
I personally hold that most logical descriptions of God fit into the latter category, thus nothing has actually been proved other than the fact that genuinely smart theists are capable of constructing logically consistent definitions.
But God has not been made comprehensible, just coherent. For God to become entirely comprehensible to us we would need to understand the thing we were examining.