ignosticism

the position that there are many different, contradictory definitions for the word “g-d”, so one can’t claim to be a theist or an atheist until one knows which definition is meant. furthermore, if the chosen definition is incoherent and makes no predictions that can be empirically tested, then it doesn’t matter whether one believes in it or not, for how can something meaningless be true or false? (this last part is also known as theological noncognitivism)
ignosticism parable:
an ignostic was asked whether he believed in g-d, and said, “if you mean a big man in a cloud, as children conceive of g-d, then i am an atheist, for we have satellites now which would have surely seen such a creature if he existed. if you mean an all-encomp-ssing g-d who is synonymous with the entire universe, then i am a theist… though i see no reason for having two words for the same thing. if you mean a vaguely-defined supernatural being whose existence cannot be tested, then i am a theological noncognitivist; it doesn’t matter whether a meaningless thing is true or not, and i won’t worry about it any more than i will about invisible pink unicorns.”