My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists

[Tiberius]

Non sequitur. It does not follow from this that I have asserted that all variants of agnosticism make an absolute claim, only the kind that claims fundamental unknowability. I was commenting on this definition (why leave it out?):
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." (source Wikipedia)

In which there are clearly two kinds of agnosticism. They read unknown or unknowable

Very well, you meant one "form" of agnosticism, but I still disagree that there are "forms" of agnosticism in that definition.

The definition says "is unknown or unknowable". This does not mean that one for of agnosticism says that things are unknown, and another says thing are unknowable. It is specifically written so to include both "unknown" and "unknowable" so as to be a relative statement.

To demonstrate:

If X is a statement, and X is unknown, then it can be unknowable, but given that the statement is already unknown, we cannot say whether it is unknowable or not (hence the OR).

If X is a statement, and X is unknowable, then by very definition it is unknown (since something that is unknowable cannot be known, and anything that cannot be known is unknown).

You cannot separate agnosticism into two categories, one saying "unknown" and the other saying "unknowable"; that isn't the point of it. Indeed, the "unknown" position already has a label of its own: skepticism.

Skepticism is the method of reserving judgement on the "unknown" until further evidence comes forward. Skepticism never states that things can be "unknowable".

The fact that you acknowledge that there are two variants with fundamental different meaning, i.e. unknown and unknowable, means that you acknowledge there is not an unambiguous interpretation of agnosticism. Unknown is not the same as unknowable. It simply is not true that you have always carefully included these different kinds. For example you do not make such a careful distinction when you say:
"As for your assertion that agnosticism is a strong absolute truth claim, I disagree."
You boldly deny any possible absolutistic content.

I boldly deny any absolutistic content not because I am leaving out some absolutistic content in my definition of agnosticism, but because I disagree that there is any absolutistic content in agnosticism. I disagree that there are two types of agnosticism, one for the unknown and one for the unknowable (as I've already argued above). Given that I am left with only one definition of agnosticism (including the "unknown or unknowable" phrase), I further disagree that this is in any way absolutistic.

Firstly there is a difference between what we could call practical unknowability (not being able to know now for practical reasons) and fundamental unknowability, i.e. being absolutly sure that such knowledge is unattainable forever. Whenever I speak of fundamental unknowability, I am speaking about the latter.

You bring up human fallibility to make your point but make no explicit claim that human infallibility is absolutely unobtainable forever. If you would do so, it would be an absolute claim and since you're a fallible being yourself that would be contradicting yourself, wouldn't it? And that is why your lecture clearly brings to light that you do not really include the kind of fundamental unknowability that I am speaking about.

Also the question is not whether I acknowledge human fallibility or not, the question is what range of interpretation to agnosticism is around. You've missed the fundamental unknowability position inside agnosticism.

I brought up the fundamental unknowability point before, when I spoke about the subjective nature of knowledge, and how there is no known way of obtaining objective knowledge. This is very different from practical knowability, which I agree rests on the fallible nature of humans.

As I've said before, bringing up such a "claim" is not an absolute statement, because agnosticism itself is applied to it. In other words, I believe that some things are unknowable (fundamentally) through agnosticism because of the logical arguments that have been presented and as so far not disproved. At the same time, because of my agnosticism, I hold my belief as just that (a belief), because the very arguments that hold agnosticism up are the result of human logical thought, and as such cannot be known to be true themselves, thus they may be wrong, and thus agnosticism may be the wrong way to look at things such as knowledge. This is a profoundly relative statement. It might be a relative statement about absolute knowledge, but it is relative (as I hold, are all statements about such things).

I think I have made clear now what the difference is between your human infallibility argumument and the stance of fundamental unknowability.

And I hope I've made clear the difference between one argument I made for human infallibility, and the other argument I made previously addressing fundamental unknowability.

This whole thread and certainly your neglect of the fundamental unknowabiliy position testifies of how ill defined it is.

As I said before, not neglected (read the argument from subjectivism I made in my first post). You are making it ill defined by splitting it into two types of agnosticism which simply don't exist, namely because one make an absolutist statement (because it misses out the relative "or") about knowledge, and the other is just another way of describing skepticism.

Are we in the clear now? Fundamental unknowability is not the same as practical unknowability.

Never said it was...

Please curb that anger Adrian. I do consider that possibility and I do value your opinion. But this reaction does not make it more plausible since neither you nor I can retrieve their motives straight from their heads. Did you miss the emoticon trying to signal a ifeeling I got from the way this thread is going? I may be deluded here but EvF stopped answering and immediatly Void takes over crediting him with kudos, Void stops answering and 'the boss' steps right in. I sincerely apologize if this has only been in the eye of me as a beholder.

Indeed, you have surely looked at the other side. You simply seem to have failed to come to a rational conclusion that EvF said something that Void agreed with (hence the kudos), Void then taking over the line of arguing (and EvF not saying anything due to simply not wanting to say "I agree" and waste a post, or perhaps due to some time constraint), and then when I pitched in he gave me kudos because he, likewise, agreed with what I said, and left me to argue the rest.

Of course, the other rational explanation (before we accept some "conspiracy" or an "immature" reason) is that this entire debate has only spanned the length of 48 hours (if that), which combined by this being the holiday season (and therefore a drop in forum activity), has simply been ignored or postponed by some of the aforementioned members who have much better things to do.

I myself will have to leave this debate for a while, since I'm going home tomorrow and won't have much internet. I'll get back to any responses you have at a later date (assuming I don't tonight if I have time).

Have a merry christmas