Nothing. I am ignostic. An interesting benefit of this position is that when the religious folks in my extended family ask about my religion and I tell them I'm ignostic, they 100% of the time misinterpret that as 'agnostic'. For some reason they can totally accept this position, maybe they just figure I'll eventually come around.
I do not disabuse them of this interpretation, because I avoid conflict. And religion, much like politics, seems to result in conflict most of the time.
Ignosticism is the ultimate "I've had enough of this shit". I too take advantage of the hard of hearing to get on with my life both in peace and a sense of superiority.
This is the first time I've come across the term, and I'm a bit baffled by it.
It could be that my quick web search just turned up poor definitions, but if so, I'm hoping you'll correct me from your own understanding.
It sounds like it's saying the word "god" has no referent, that it's conceptually vacant. But it seems obvious to me that there are literally hundreds of concepts people do mean when they use the term, some of which cannot be vacant by definition (i.e., "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," because it's a definition that depends on being just within the vacant limits of understanding).
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).
I do not disabuse them of this interpretation, because I avoid conflict. And religion, much like politics, seems to result in conflict most of the time.