Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

That doesn't really defeat the point does it because the Greek "a" still does exactly the same thing as the English grammar "a" i.e. reverses the sense of the word.

I just included the entire post, so this wasn't part of my refutation, just pointing out the correct etymology of the word.

Belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is STILL a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it.

Agreed, I never disputed this. When considering the question of whether one believes in God, you can either be atheist or theist. An "apatheist" is a term for someone who cannot make up their mind (so they may simply refuse to make a decision, or flip back and forth between positions), but the decision is still a two state affair as you say. I did not disagree with this.

What I disagreed with is that agnosticism does not cover whether you belief something to be true, it covers whether you think something can be proven to be true. I'll give the analogy I often give when explaining agnosticism:

Imagine you are in a closed in room with no access to the outside. There are no windows to see outside, no other technical devices you could use to see outside, etc. You can however, hear what is going on outside. You hear the sound of rain on the rood of the building. You are asked two questions:

1) Do you believe it is raining?
2) Can you prove it is/isn't raining? (depending on which belief you chose above)

If I were in this situation, I could make a solid argument for a belief that it is raining. I know what rain sounds like, and when I hear that sound, I conclude that it is raining. Of course, I also admit that the noise could be other things, such as a speaker above the room, broadcasting the sound of rain, or even some kind of hallucination, however I would still hold a belief that it is raining because out of the possibilities, the most likely is that it is indeed raining. In answer to the second question, I would say that no, given my current circumstances, I could not prove that it is raining. The mere existence of other alternatives tells me this, since even though they are less likely, this does not equate impossibility. This admission of not being able to prove it is raining is the position agnosticism takes when it comes to a position of belief concerning God.

Reversing the scenario, suppose I said that I did not believe it was raining. Perhaps I am more suspicious about the room I am in; I think this is all some weird experiment, or that given the month is July, rain is very unlikely. I say I do not believe it is raining, yet when asked the second question, I still admit I cannot prove my position. This is perhaps the agnosticism that most are fine to admit, that one cannot prove a negative.

The agnostic (the "don't know" kind) is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* in the EXACT same way an atheist does.

Not neccessarily. As with my example above, a believer can still believe in the absence of knowledge. I have Christian friends, and most (if not all) would say they believe but do not claim to know. Remember, agnosticism as a lone position tells us nothing about the beliefs of a person, just if they think a certain "truth" can be proven or not. Likewise, an explanation (whether religious or not) does not have to be proven to be believed. Many scientists (and some members of this forum) "believe" string theory is a good explanation, but string theory is for the moment based in mathematics, and is unproven (some scientists say by its very nature unprovable) at the moment. It is still an explanation though. Even if some religious groups say their explanation is "the truth", all one is required to do is to believe in it, not state it is absolute knowledge (and those who do state such things are the ones we call "gnostic").

The agnostic (the "existence of god is unknown and unknowable" kind) is STILL engaged in little more than a philosophical dodge regardless of whether they are agnostic believer or an agnostic disbeliever.

I simply cannot see how it is a dodge. Your beliefs tell you nothing about hor provable you think something is, just as how provable you think something is tells you nothing about what you believe. Perhaps you could explain what "dodge" you think they are doing, because you've just stated that without any reasoning.

In essence, whichever way I look at it agnosticism is an utterly redundant term, the agnostic at any given point is either a believer or a disbeliever (a theist or an atheist) and uses "agnosticism" primarily to shield him or herself from the being identified as a theist or the harsh perception of atheist.

This is the point I feel I must hammer in time and time again. I do not disagree that an "agnostic" is either a believer or a disbeliever, but that is completely irrelevant since agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It's like saying that an agnostic is at any given point a car owner or not a car owner, which whilst perfectly true, has nothing to do with what an agnostic is.

I share your distain for people who simple claim they are "agnostics" to shield themselves from revealing their actual beliefs. For one, I think it is cowardly and just plain useless. For another, I know that they are using the word "agnostic" completely out of its original context. They take it to mean "I don't know what I believe", when it should be "I don't think X can be proven". I'm an agnostic, and I certainly do not hide behind agnosticism; I state very clearly that I am an atheist, but the two are not mutually exclusive for the simple reason why car owners and atheists are not mutually exclusive. They refer to completely different things.

I think you are clinging to this misunderstanding of the word, which is why your arguments are flawed. You think that to be an agnostic is to have a different position other than that of an atheist / theist, but the truth is that such a word can be said to describe the position of atheism / theism, not replace it. A gnostic theist is someone who believes in God and goes further to say its existence can be proven. An agnostic theist shares the beliefs of the gnostic theist, but states that God's existence cannot be proven (due to various arguments, namely the attributes of Gods such as omniscience being immeasurable by humans).

You are taking "agnostic" as a noun, when in this circumstance it should be an adjective; it describes belief in terms of knowledge. In a general sense, "agnostic" can be a noun, but when talking about specifics, it becomes an adjective.

Hope that helps.