I'm afraid it is very founded fr0d0. Whilst Huxley did indeed define Agnosticism as a rejection of the Gnostics, the word "Gnosticism" fell out of it's original use for the movement, and was used to describe people who claim the opposite of Agnosticism. To paraphrase from the interview/debate Ray Comfort had with Thunderf00t:
Ray: How did life begin?
Thunderf00t: This is what we refer to in science as an 'unknown'.
Ray: I've got to stop you there, because I know. You don't know, but I do.
This is an example of gnostic thinking. He claims to have absolute knowledge through what has been "revealed" to him through scripture. On his blog he has stated multiple times that there is no evidence that could persuade him that evolution was true, because evolution to him is already false, and creation is absolute truth.
It's not weak language at all, you are simply going down a similar route Kyu did when trying to understand what we mean. I'm not denying that agnostic can be related to atheism, and indeed when I say 'agnostic atheist' it does reveal something about my atheism, but it isn't a quantification. My atheism is the same atheism as that of a gnostic atheist (or as you would have it, an atheist who is also a gnostic). It's the same thing, because it can't be quantified. It's a simple statement of disbelief.
Where I differ with the gnostic atheist is in my position on whether deities can be known, and as an agnostic I say they cannot.
How can anyone be militantly agnostic? Easily, if we ignore your stupid example of "I'm militant about not knowing" which is a strawman. I sum it up nicely in my religious views which you apparently didn't read past the first 3 words:
"I can't know, and neither can you."
Not, "I don't know" but "I can't". That is agnosticism. It is a view that some things simply cannot be known, and I hold that nobody can know, thus I am militant about it.
As for the information it adds, I've already told you. Atheism as it stands is (as you say) not theism. It is the disbelief in the existence of deities. On its own, this says nothing of whether the atheist may claim this disbelief as absolute truth or not (and as atheism has no dogma, neither theism, you cannot say this is included in the definition). I have met atheists who claim to hold proofs for God's non existence, as I have met theists who claim to hold proofs for God's existence. Both of these are easily separable from other atheists and theists, and the separation comes in whether they subscribe to agnosticism or not.
It may seem like a nonsense and superfluous qualification to you, but it is neither nonsense, nor superfluous, nor a qualification.
Ray: How did life begin?
Thunderf00t: This is what we refer to in science as an 'unknown'.
Ray: I've got to stop you there, because I know. You don't know, but I do.
This is an example of gnostic thinking. He claims to have absolute knowledge through what has been "revealed" to him through scripture. On his blog he has stated multiple times that there is no evidence that could persuade him that evolution was true, because evolution to him is already false, and creation is absolute truth.
It's not weak language at all, you are simply going down a similar route Kyu did when trying to understand what we mean. I'm not denying that agnostic can be related to atheism, and indeed when I say 'agnostic atheist' it does reveal something about my atheism, but it isn't a quantification. My atheism is the same atheism as that of a gnostic atheist (or as you would have it, an atheist who is also a gnostic). It's the same thing, because it can't be quantified. It's a simple statement of disbelief.
Where I differ with the gnostic atheist is in my position on whether deities can be known, and as an agnostic I say they cannot.
How can anyone be militantly agnostic? Easily, if we ignore your stupid example of "I'm militant about not knowing" which is a strawman. I sum it up nicely in my religious views which you apparently didn't read past the first 3 words:
"I can't know, and neither can you."
Not, "I don't know" but "I can't". That is agnosticism. It is a view that some things simply cannot be known, and I hold that nobody can know, thus I am militant about it.
As for the information it adds, I've already told you. Atheism as it stands is (as you say) not theism. It is the disbelief in the existence of deities. On its own, this says nothing of whether the atheist may claim this disbelief as absolute truth or not (and as atheism has no dogma, neither theism, you cannot say this is included in the definition). I have met atheists who claim to hold proofs for God's non existence, as I have met theists who claim to hold proofs for God's existence. Both of these are easily separable from other atheists and theists, and the separation comes in whether they subscribe to agnosticism or not.
It may seem like a nonsense and superfluous qualification to you, but it is neither nonsense, nor superfluous, nor a qualification.
