I thought I might make a brief post about Ignosticism.

I am an Ignostic (Agnostic Atheist). As such I do not believe in any Gods (Atheist, lacking belief in God(s)), I do not have any real knowledge of any such God(s)(Agnostic)
AND
I think that every single Religious and Theological position assumes way too much about the whole damn thing.

Ignosticism is an Epistomologic position; it is a set of ideas refuting the importance of determining the existence of God. It claims that knowledge regarding the reality of God is altogether unprofitable.

It is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?

I evolved from a. Christian Theist; to b. Agnostic Atheist; c. to Ignostic, and have been such for many years. It took me years to move from a to b, and from b to c, and there were steps along the way intellectually. Yet the central issue OF Ignosticism simply never occured to me, so ingrained was the notion of God by culture and tradtion.

In all Religious & Philosophical thought about God, you ASSUME God and then ponder what it must be like, according to logic, religious text and so forth. Yet I never questioned WHY I made that first assumption. I just never looked at it, I assumed it too.

When I did look at it, I found I had no reason to make such an assumption.

WHY is it rational to assume a superbeing, and then ponder the nature of said superbeing?

I would posit it is pointless, UNLESS a part of you either WANTS that to be true and real, or BELIEVES it to be true and real, or HOPES it to be true and real.

THUS unless it is in someway shape or form your own desire for a superbeing, it is rather pointless to assume such a superbeing exists without the requisite evidence to assume it does in fact exist.

Seeing as this being is not well defined or is beyond definition itself, it is as pointless as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I had a long pleasant conversation wit a Christian Agnostic here, who insists he is not trying to prove God, only discussing it (just as I did thirty+ years ago), but I would assert that is not possible.
Either you are engaged in a pointless mental exercise, or trying to construct a logical proof for the God model you hold. So my question to myself became "What am I trying to prove with these discussions and to whom am I trying to prove it if not myself as many of these are internal permutations of thought?"

It serves NO POINT, unless those permutations of thought are inteneded to create a LOGICAL PROOF, of some God Model, which can never be shown to exist in reality.

So, WHY is it rational to assume a Superbeing to begin with?"