Yay! Ignosticism!
I think that once the ignostic position is established, strong atheism follows quite naturally.
"If you don't know what God means then what are you even talking about? You might as be saying that aklsflakjgals exists."

It's also a handy way to answer people who are especially obscure over their God concept.
"We can't talk about the existence of God until you make it clear what you even mean by God. Until you show me that the word is meaningful then how can I give it any significance at all?"

Hmmmm...
It seems to me that these negative theologians, after recognising the limits of language, under estimated their dependence on it. Their negative characteristics appear to be presented the way we present negative characteristics on cognitive objects - with the silent assumption that 'something' will be left over that separates it from our concept of 'nothing'.

As far as I'm aware, weak atheism states "I have evidence or other form of reasoning to convince me of a God's existence" while strong atheism states "God definately doesn't exist".
The Ignostic states, "Only a coherently defined object can be said to 'exist'. God, as I understand it, is incoherent. Until the theist brings me a coherent concept of God I can only be a strong atheist."

Although a 'God' might exist regardless of the Ignostic's lack of understanding, this can only be thought by someone who does have a coherent understanding of the word God and isn't a possibility if the ignostic is correct.

This is very interesting. I'm going to look for more on this.

I guess I'm an ignostic.

To be fair to them, other concepts like morality have also threatened incoherence by similar investigations, e.g. Mackie's error theory and Ayer's non-cognitivism of morals. For the same reason we intuitively know that there's something to morality and were justified in having 'faith' in it when we hadn't figured out the concept, I think theologians can be justified in 'keeping at' God.

The difference is, morality is on the verge of being vindicated by philosophy while religion is about to have it's lights out. Another difference is that the use of morality is justified by our experience in life - I'm certain we have all experienced bad situations caused by someone's lack of morality.
Experience of religion shows that it tends to be harmful rather than helpful... although I think there are ways that religion has shined.

e.g. Religion's psychological effects have often succeeded in taking the follower's 'worship' of everyday things like money and business. This means that religious people have had a history of being more resistant to the pitfalls of greed and the other things that 'worldly' people are likely to fall for.

The archetype of the religious man is one who can be trusted to be righteous in doing what is right rather then doing it for material gain. (although some have been frauds in this respect, they are the ones who fail to fit the archetype)
I think this archetype is what people are thinking of when they believe that religion is socially necessary and can still do good.

That's why I think religions like Buddhism are so appealing to the modern westerner - they offer all the benefits like the 'righteous spiritual man' archetype (Kwai Chang Caine!!) while minimising the anti-freethinking elements - especially as modern Buddhist 'popularisers' encourage you to 'pick and choose' as to what fits your common sense!

    Again, thanks! Just how does one know that God is eternal and  not a series of gods one after another? Immperfections suggest a limited one or many at cross purposes.To assert that He is a designer begs the question that he had us in mind and that natural selection is not a power unto itself , not run by anything else as evidence shows. God is merely a word without reference to reality! [One might educate the folks @ skeptical community and freethought forum on this subject.] A good place for naturalists is the religious site Theology Web.  Theists merely feel that there has to be a power beyond nature.Thye use anthropomorphic pareidolia to see  a divine mind which as Victor Stenger shows is not there. And everyday I receive blessings without divine intervention!

  Here it so aptly applies as the god-notion requires ad hoc assumptions that mean nothing while natural causes mean everything. God did it is just a cop-out! He brings forth no useful knowledge as natural selection does. A hypothesis or theory should mean something, not just be a guess! How can the meaningless add to explanations? Hume and Kant long ago defeated God as an explanation[ although Kant wanted God to be a moral one]. God adds only obfuscation!

I'm assuming you meant:

It seems to me that one can be an agnostic (no proof/knowledge) ignostic (god is incoherent) atheist... or would ignostic supersede agnostic since you need a coherent definition before proof can be presented? 

-Triften 

It's a good article, but it doesn't address the question of this topic, whether non-cognitivism implies strong atheism.

In response to Wave Freak, I agree that Occam's can never support strong atheism as it is an appeal to practicality rather than absolute truth, and would use a different approach from ignosticism to strong atheism. I would appeal to arguments from linguistic philosophy to show that only coherent objects can be considered as existing.

I go for the latter.
The way I see it, the agnostic says that the truth/falsity of God propositions is unknowable but they atleast conceed that we know what we are talking about. They say that God's a possibility, the truth of which is unknowable. The Ignostic can deny there even being a possibility as the words don't really mean anything.

But I guess that depends on your philosophy of language.

  Contrary to A.J. Ayer, ,I find that ignosticism is indeed a part of atheism; it intrudes into the arguments for God. It is meaningless to ask for the first cause as Existence  is all, and nothng can therefor be  behind it to be meaningful. It is ever so meaningless to speak of  design when all we see are patterns in nature; to see design is to use pareidolia like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla and as meaningless.

  Then it takes convoluted ad  hoc assumptions, even granted meaning, to find God an explanation as shown from the quote from Parsons, much less a personal one as Richard Swinburne so thinks.

  Nicholas Everitt, Michael Martin and Kai Nielsen note that God's properties are so incompatible that He cannot exist.

 Double depression is ever so depressing! Your happy neurotic depressive. Thanks to all.

 

 

  Daedalus. I'm glad for us1

  I find that ignosticism pervades arguments for Him. The first cause is meaningless in that it has no application to reality. The designer is out of the question , for that requires begging the question of design and so  meaningless.Iit is so meaningless to find God doing miracles as they have natural causes.

 In ' Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy," David Ramsay Steele, argues that the term God can be meaningful and  states that ignosticism is dated, not popular since sixty years ago. he doesn't equate meaninglessness with incoherence. I  accept Michael  Michael Martin's notion of meaninglessness in '"Atheism: a Philosophical Justification."

   The God-notion is no  more meaningful  than phlogiston!

 

  Thanks to all!

Interesting thread, thanks for posting skeptic. I will simply say as regard to the many  definitions of god, "I am not even a bit agnostic, I am god as you, as all is one, and therefore atheist." The god definitions of the traditional God of Abe theists are a harmful barbaric menace of separatism and idol worship.

  I needed this, thanks, and it goes nicely with my little  Occam's Razor brain ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

        I find that terms for Him like the First Cuase have no meaning in the sense of reference to reality as I'll pose that @ Arguments about Him-that square circle. Yes, being a non--concept , He is as a square circle or a married bachelor. This point that those  terms are thus is mine alone so far. Others here might disagree.

      Mr. David Ramsay Steele, my friend, disagrees with me on the point that He and the terms are meaingnless. He states that we can comprehend them, but I maintain that since they have no reference to  reality , they are indeed meaningless. Is this a matter of semantics?

     He states that   verificationism requires that  for investigators to affirms a claim, they should in principle be able to find it. Then he contradicts himself  by stating had scientists use this principle , they would  not have found atoms and never would be able to find superstring s. In principle, no one could ever find Him, but in principle it is just a matter of the thechnology available at the time. Do I err?

      Dr. Paul Draper, my friend, in an email to  me finds that Lord Rusell's cosmic tea pot as an illustration of the God-noncepts fails. Dr. Alister McGrath, Dr. Clinton Richard Dawlins, my friend, agrees,finding the analogy [ using Santa instead] superficiial as no  one believes in the tea pot. Nay, it isn't who believes or not and the matter of sucstance, but the point  is that both itmes are meanignless in reference to reality So, how do you find this point

   I find that theists just accept their ideas of Him as basic as Dr.Alvin Platinga claims that God is a baic idea llike other minds and external reality. None of that is basic , but the it must be's and guesses.

  Again, the God-non-concept requires convluted ad hoc  assumptions without any evidence whereas  real concpepts  are evidential. So, these two challenges work together against His existence. And the Ockham underscores science not requiring Him. And the teleonomic argument that I'll give @ Argumenta about Him-that square circle will underscore both the  Ockhand and methodological naturalism in not requiring Him as an   explanantion. The quote from Dr.Parsons reveals no    there there for Himb eing an an explanation.