Igtheism, or Ignosticism, is usually defined as the need for an unambiguous falsifiable characterization of a deity before legitimate discussion thereof or apatheism be said characterization unfalsifiable. What I find useful in igtheism is that it allows fruitful dialogue with the religious about concepts that mean a lot to them without mandating identification with a single religious tradition. Furthermore, it allows participation in the aspects of multiple religions that one finds legitimate without requiring exclusive belief in one thereof. As these implications of Igtheism are not specified in its definition, I would like to call the religiosity that exhibits such implications Omnist Igtheism. I consider myself an Omnist Igtheist in that I relate to and participate in the religiosity of people of multiple traditions without exclusively ascribing myself to any thereof. I also think Omnist Igtheism should be differentiated from Omnism, which does not imply belief in those aspects of religions with which one agrees. I prefer it over atheism because atheism outright denies the legitimacy of all deities, which constitute a very meaningful part of many cultures. Not appreciating them limits one's ability to relate to the lives of a great many people. Although I do agree with atheism in some respects, it prevents me from formally relating to the natural spirituality of others and myself. What do peeps think of this religiosity?
Last edited by a moderator: