So I was asked what "igtheism" is. I'm not sure how to explain it, because it is somewhat complicated. There are a couple of different meanings.

First, I should point out that igtheism is interchangeable, more or less, with the word ignosticism. I suppose one could be an ignostic atheist as well, though that's basically an igtheist.

Second, one of the main meanings of igtheism/ignosticism can be summed up as the answer to a question. When someone asks "Does God Exist?" to an igtheist, the igtheist will reply with, "Well, define god first and then I'll answer." The igtheist recognizes that there are many conflicting definitions of what god is, nobody can seem to agree on any of them, and thus if we're going to talk about god, we better be sure we know what kind of god we're talking about. The Christian god is very different from the deist god, and is just as different from the idea that "god = love." (I know this from experience, because I tried debating with someone over the existence of god, and he said in the middle of the debate "I don't believe in the Christian god, I think god is just love.")

Third, igtheism can be, instead of answering the question with a request for definitions, a statement that "The question is meaingless and irrelevant." This is because, on this stance, the question "Does god exist?" has the same meaning and validity as "What is the color of Saturday?" It is, quite literally, nonsense. (Other descriptors include "incoherent," "unintelligible," and "gibberish.") This view can also be found via way of the question of falsifiability, i.e. the question of god's existence cannot be falsified, and thus is completely unscientific and you couldn't even consider the question to begin with.

This latter view is also somewhat simultaneous with the idea of theological noncognitivism, the view that the word "god" does not actually express a thought.

I happen to take the latter view of igtheism. Personally, I think the word "god" has as much meaning as the phrase "zuelkampian balimpope." It is utterly meaningless. Most western concepts of god, particularly in the Christian tradition, are based solely on vacuous, empty rhetoric. When you try to find what they mean, there is no "there" there. It's just empty. Meaningless. 

And ultimately, irrelevant.

It's what I feel about the entire debate over god's existence. First, you're debating something that's nonsensical to begin with. Second, whether one side or the other "wins" doesn't matter. The sun will still rise, the Earth will still turn, and bastards will still be bastards. While I do wish for more people to come out from the shadow of superstition and mysticism and become more secular and critical thinking, I ultimately view the "theological question"       as a waste of time. The real debate should be had over public policy, over the separation of church and state and keeping secular law rather than using religious law. That DOES have meaning, and is very relevant, and is very important, and is it utterly vital that the side of individual liberty, natural rights, and peace wins out, for the sake of humanity is at stake.

Anyways, that's my personal view on igtheism/ignosticism. I'm sure there are others who would define it slightly differently, and they're welcome to. I encourage it. As the reasonable person says, don't take my word for it, think for yourself!

My blog post on this topic, which does not go so much in depth, but has links:
Shared publiclyView activity