(January 30, 2015 at 9:12 pm)YGninja Wrote: No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does", which is an extraneous statement but atleast coherent.
When you say you "don't believe", what you are actually saying is you believe it doesn't (exist). Like if someone says they "don't believe" you are telling the truth what they are actually saying is that they believe you are lying. This is just mis-use of a colloquialism. You are also missing the meaning of the word agnosticism, which is a lack of knowledge precluding the ability to form an opinion. Agnosticism has never pertaining to knowing with certainty, this is why i warded you off defining by etymology. No-one can ever really say they *know* anything, which is why such a definition of agnosticism would be meaningless. Everyone would be agnostic about everything.
I disagree with your view. Firstly, not all instances of saying "I don't know" are positive negations, as you're implying here. "I don't believe in god" is a distnictly different claim than "God doesn't exist." The first talks about my internal state of mind, the second is an objective claim about the external world.
Secondly, though Huxley coined the word, his connotation is not the only one used by people -- and etymology is a perfectly acceptable way of parsing words. If you'd like, I'll get out the OED and show you that there are several connotations to the word, your flat statement notwithstanding.
Belief and knowledge are two different things.
