Why Agnostic?

[Purple Rabbit]

The reason there are so many homonyms is because people have been mis-using the word. The word in a philosophical sense (as defined by Huxley) is someone who does not claim absolute knowledge on certain matters; they hold that concepts such as God are unknowable. Your dutch dictionary is correct with the definition (although it seems a bit short, what was the full definition?).

It reads: "Agnosticisme: de leer dat de mens van de eerste oorzaak der dingen (God, het absolute) en in het algemeen van het bovenzinnelijke niets kan weten" (Kramer's Groot Woordenboek Nederlands, 1981)
For the few non-dutch among us:
"Agnosticism: the doctrine that man can have no knowledge of first cause (God, the absolute) and of the transcedental in general"

Imo there is a difference between fundamental agnosticism (we not only do not know now, but we will never know in the furure) and technical agnosticism. Fundamental agnosticism is absolute in nature. Isn't it strange to claim the absolute with a word that expresses doubt?

You seem to give priority to original defintion (Huxley) above common use of the word. I see no specific reason for that. The waterfall of homonyms after Huxley is not an indication of clarity of his definition.

"Am I being agnostic when I doubt if it is me typing this?" You could be if you did not claim absolute knowledge that you were typing it. An agnostic would hold that all their experiences could not be real, and that there is no way to either confirm or deny this, given the subjectivity of their position.

That's not the reading of my example that I intended. My emphasis should be:
"Am I being agnostic when I doubt if it is me typing this?" Meaning: would I use the word agnostic when the word 'doubtful' or 'not absolute certain' says it all.