It looks like much of the web has been edited and gutted so many times to be useless and conflated with theological-noncognitivism. I do have some older books s

It looks like much of the web has been edited and gutted so many times to be useless and conflated with theological-noncognitivism. I do have some older books somewhere that go into more detail, but tbh it looks like the argument over sources will apply there. The word god has referents. In fact it has many, very different, referents. An ignostic has no issue with the (varied) concepts of gods. An ignostic says "I am ignorant of a (consistently/well defined) god which is both worth and deserving of worship". This does not mean any or many of the various gods do not exist. A typical example would be that the Christian god is ill defined (testament collisions being the most blaring), but if I in good faith take the 'good' Christian god of many street Christians I am left with a god that I do not need to worship (as I am a good person). If I take a more vengeful god definition (everything from you must worship me or go to hell to worship me or be struck by the pox) then I'm left with one that isn't worth my worship. Many definitions do not require anything from me or describe an inconsequential god, true or not, so can be ignored. In these ways an ignostic is not denying the concepts, is not even claiming to not believe a god exists, yet has rejected the religions they do know about. To engage with a ignostic you would need to lay out a consostent definition, then show the value of the active belief vs the life they currently live (or an adjustment to that).