Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

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?

I don't quite understand your last question. How does agnosticism use a word of "doubt" to express a absolute concept? Unless you are combining definitions perhaps?

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.

I think priority should always fall on the original meaning unless a good reason can be made to change it. In the case of agnosticism, I don't see what that reason could be. It is a good word, based off "gnosticism" (which stated that certain spiritual truths are known), and added the "a" as a negating letter, leaving you with "certain spiritual truths are not known". Huxley further explained that agnosticism should also be a position that certain truths can never be known, due to the nature of these truths (i.e. because non-omniscient people cannot test the omniscience of so called "gods"). Perhaps it is just a lifetime of people getting misconceptions and sharing them, who knows? I suspect it was people taking the definitive "Do you know if God exists?" question of agnosticism and replacing it with "Do you know if you believe?" which tends to be the most popular misdefinition of the word.

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.

No, you wouldn't. Agnosticism has nothing to do with doubt or certainty. It is a question of knowledge rather than a question of how strongly you believe or trust something.

No it isn't. No one can 'know' so it doesn't work. AA's descriptions are the only accurate ones.

Some people claim they can, through spiritual experience etc. Some Christians argue that the word "Christian" means one who "knows" God, which is bullshit, but reveals them as gnostics.

You are all gnostic atheists and I'm a gnostic theist. We have conclusively established existence or non existence.

I have not conclusively established god's non-existence. I have concluded that there is not enough evidence to make me believe, but that is completely different.