Check this out: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism

I think Agnosticism is not related to "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you." as you said wrote previously, but in a neutral state of expression. An agnostic would not wonder if a particular God does exists because he respects all forms of divinities. I guess it is all about of not taking part in any religious dogma and respecting every representation of it.
I quickly did a research and I found the following trick which is so interesting:

Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:

• Does the sentence “God exists” express a proposition?
• If so, then is that proposition true or false?

If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist with regard to God-talk. If you say yes to it, thereby allowing that the given sentence does express a proposition, then you are a cognitivist with regard to God-talk. All theists, atheists, and agnostics are cognitivists, so the second question applies to them: is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, “The evidence is insufficient”

If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist — javi2541997

"Theological noncognitivism is the non-theist position that religious language, particularly theological terminology such as "God", is not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like "God exists" are cognitively meaningless.[1] It may be considered synonymous with ignosticism (also called igtheism)," - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

So, Ignosticism would be a more accurate word for the position than Agnosticism?

I think both are correct because they are agree in one principle: God and the belief on it is meaningless or at least when they ask for proofs, are not sufficient

I mostly agree with your definitions. I would add, though, that an agnostic believes in the possibility that a god exists. The possibility of god is an equally untenable belief, in my mind.

The possibility of god is an equally untenable belief, in my mind. — NOS4A2

I don't think about it as long as I don't get a definition.
But for the rest, yes, there is a possibility that god exists. I can even prove it to you. Regard this little syllogism:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.

Pretty undeniable, don't you think?

I don't think that your terminology quite accurately depicts all the positions available with respect to the topic at hand. Firstly, I think that "Colloquial Agnosticism" can, in terms of its definition you proposed, be applied to many philosophical positions. So I would like to semantically note that holding the position "I do not know" is not merely restricted to colloquial speech.

Secondly, "Philosophical Agnosticism" seems to lump two drastically different claims into one, which I would argue thereby warrants two separate terms (at the very least): "god is not known" is not equivocal to "god can't be known". The former asserts a humbler position that we (or potentially "I") have not obtained knowledge of God existing nor not existing, whereas the latter asserts the impossibility of ever acquiring knowledge of God's existence: these are two very different claims. Consequently, "I don't know what god is- and neither to you" could be merely asserting the former or the actually asserting the latter, which would be vital to distinguish in a conversation (i.e. "I don't know what god is - and neither do you and neither will us both ever know").

Thirdly, I think your two terms are a false dilemma: either I accept that I am merely claiming "I do not know God exists", or I am obliged to accept "We do not know nor can we know God exists or his nature". But I could very well claim many other permutations of these positions, here's just a few:

1. We do not know God exists (implies we don't know his nature).
2. We do know God exists/doesn't exist, but do not know his nature
3. I do know God exists/doesn't exist, but do not know his nature
4. I do not know God exists (implies I don't know his nature).
5. I do not know God exists, but I believe a God exists.
6. I do know God exists, don't know its nature, but believe certain characteristics to be of its nature.
7. etc...

Fourthly, an agnostic only has a burden of proof IFF they are asserting they know that we or they can't know, which the only other option to this assertion is to take a "inner state" approach in your terms, which I don't think is the only other option.

To summarize:

Do you agree with these definitions?

I don't. I think generically agnosticism is the suspension of asserting either way pertaining to a knowledge claim, regardless of whether they believe either way.

Are you an agnostic/Agnostic?

I would personally use a two-dimensional labeling system wherein one axis is knowledge (and lack thereof) and the other is belief (and lack thereof). In such a system, I would most accurately label myself an agnostic atheist. I do concede that it is highly controversial, but nevertheless that's the closest representation of my views I have found to date. As of now, I cannot confidently assert I know god doesn't exist, but I do not believe it does.

I don't think that your terminology quite accurately depicts all the positions available with respect to the topic at hand. — Bob Ross

I agree. And I said so in the OP. I was primarily focused on the distinction of inner state versus position.

"god is not known" is not equivocal to "god can't be known" — Bob Ross

Agree again. The former is often referred to as "soft" and the later as "hard" Agnosticism. But both are only ever possible options for the Agnostic, not the agnostic.

I would personally use a two-dimensional labeling system wherein one axis is knowledge (and lack thereof) and the other is belief (and lack thereof). In such a system, I would most accurately label myself an agnostic atheist. — Bob Ross

I also did before changing to / relabelling myself as Agnostic.
(And I also remain an atheist - by definition, not by choice.)

I do concede that it is highly controversial, — Bob Ross

I don't think so. It is a method I've seen often.

I don't think about it as long as I don't get a definition.
But for the rest, yes, there is a possibility that god exists. I can even prove it to you. Regard this little syllogism:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.

Pretty undeniable, don't you think? — ArmChairPhilosopher

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different.

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different.

According to you, what's the main difference? I guess "god" and "God" are just grammatical differences. You have to write God in capital letters because it is how language works.

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different. — Jackson

No equivocation intended, nor do I see how you see one (except, as @javi2541997 noted, for grammatical reasons).
The argument has the basic form of A=B, ∃ B, ∴ ∃ A and is thus valid.

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.
Pretty undeniable, don't you think? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Words have meanings. The word "god" in P1 is not defined - and thus we cannot draw any conclusions from that statement. Consider these alternates:

P1: Clapton is a four sided triangle.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: Four sided triangles exist.

P1: Clapton is a fTyrtydfr.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: fTyrtydfr exists.

BTW - Big fan of Clapton's playing in Cream - Disraeli Gears, etc

I agree. And I said so in the OP. I was primarily focused on the distinction of inner state versus position.

That is fair. I was under the impression that Agnosticism and agnosticism were supposed to serve the purpose of being a terminology system (what you outlined I thought as the most prevalent distinction) wherein one is either accurately depicted as Agnostic or agnostic. My contention, I suppose, is that, although you do mention that there are many other definitions (as there always are), the terminology is incomplete. But if you are simply focusing on two distinctions among many, whereby conceding that the terminology does not represent a complete labeling system, then I simply misunderstood (I apologize if that's the case).

Agree again. The former is often referred to as "soft" and the later as "hard" Agnosticism. But both are only ever possible options for the Agnostic, not the agnostic.

Before I comment, let me ask for some clarification: is your Agnostic vs agnostic distinction about whom the claim is indexically referring to? As in, when you say "god is not known" is "soft Agnosticism", do you mean "[no person knows god exists"? Whereas "god is not known" in an "agnostic" position would really mean "[I do not know god exists, but I do not know if any other person does or does not know god exists"?

I also did before changing to / relabelling myself as Agnostic.
(And I also remain an atheist - by definition, not by choice.)

very interesting, what made you decide to change?

BTW - Big fan of Clapton's playing in Cream - Disraeli Gears, etc — EricH

And Blind Faith.

Agnosticism per se is sterile - it doesn't help you in making critical decisions in life. So agnostics still have to make a choice between atheism & theism, becoming agnostic atheists or agnostic theists respectively. This isn't an aut Ceasar aut nihil kinda deal though - tertium quid is a valid position to adopt.

Words have meanings. The word "god" in P1 is not defined - and thus we cannot draw any conclusions — EricH

The word "god" gets defined by P1. "Clapton is god" is short for "I define god as Clapton." And since you obviously know Clapton and you know he exists, you now know god and you know he exists.

Before I comment, let me ask for some clarification: is your Agnostic vs agnostic distinction about whom the claim is indexically referring to? As in, when you say "god is not known" is "soft Agnosticism", do you mean "[no person knows god exists"? Whereas "god is not known" in an "agnostic" position would really mean "[I do not know god exists, but I do not know if any other person does or does not know god exists"? — Bob Ross

Exactly. (And for the agnostic there is no way to claim that s/he and only s/he is unable to gain that knowledge without special pleading. So there are no "hard" agnostics.)

very interesting, what made you decide to change? — Bob Ross

I realized that Agnosticism is a stronger position (really, a position instead of just an inner state) than mere atheism. It also puts me in the same position as a Theist since I now have a burden of proof. It's at the same time levelling the playing field and giving me a stronger attack.
(It also makes me lonely. Neither atheists nor theists know how to handle my arguments so they just ignore me.)

Agnosticism per se is sterile - it doesn't help you in making critical decisions in life. — Agent Smith

And theism or atheism does?

And theism or atheism does? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Only truth/falsity are relevant to decisions.

Only truth/falsity are relevant to decisions. — Agent Smith

I agree.
And neither Theism nor Atheism are well formed propositions, thus can't have truth values.

Do you agree with these definitions?
Are you an agnostic/Agnostic? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Definitions have usage not meaning. I think it's often a rookie philosophy mistake to get too concrete about definitions.

I am an agnostic atheist - (atheism goes to belief, agnosticism goes to knowledge) none of the claims made about god/s are convincing to me, but I don't know. This would be similar to claims about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. We can't know that they do not exist, but we are not convinced by the claims which have been made.

Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a position on a single claim. These days atheists are often likely to say I don't accept the claim that god/s exist. They do not say there is no god (unless they are dogmatists).

Atheism is not a doctrine, it is a position on a single claim. These days atheists are often likely to say I don't accept the claim that god/s exist. They do not say there is no god (unless they are dogmatists). — Tom Storm

:up:

... is the proposition that God exists true or false? You are a theist if and only if you say that the proposition is true or probably true, you are an atheist if and only if you say that it is false or probably false, and you are an agnostic if and only if you understand what the proposition is, but resist giving either answer, and support your resistance by saying, “The evidence is insufficient” — javi2541997

I find a second-order approach – is theism (or its sine qua non claims) true or not true? – more reasonable.
• theists believe 'theism is true' (sound argument?)
• atheists disbelieve 'theism is true' (sound argument?)
• agnostics doubt 'the truth-value of theism is even decidable, or knowable. (Equipollence?)

Are you an agnostic/Agnostic? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Neither.

The agnostic says knowledge about God is not possible. Thus, existence or nonexistence cannot be determined.
The problem is, claims about God are based on belief and not knowledge. Thus, the agnostic just refuses to make a decision.

I agree.
And neither Theism nor Atheism are well formed propositions, thus can't have truth values. — ArmChairPhilosopher

:chin:

The agnostic says knowledge about God is not possible. — Jackson

Only some say this. Many would say we don't know as things stand, but this may change. If god/s were to arrive in town, in full regalia, we would review our position, right? To make the claim knowledge of god is not possible is a rather extreme metaphysical position.

To make the claim knowledge of god is not possible is a rather extreme metaphysical position. — Tom Storm

That's the definition I would use for agnosticism.

Ok. You're a Kantian... :wink:

Ok. You're a Kantian — Tom Storm

I am not. Every definition of agnosticism I have seen is based on the idea that there can be no knowledge of God to prove existence or nonexistence. But God is a function of belief, so I think the agnostic is wrong.

Every definition of agnosticism I have seen is based on the idea that there can be no knowledge of God to prove existence or nonexistence. But God is a function of belief, so I think the agnostic is wrong. — Jackson

Believing in God or not is one thing. God's existence or non-existence is another.

To make the claim knowledge of god is not possible is a rather extreme metaphysical position. — Tom Storm


That's the definition I would use for agnosticism. — Jackson

It would be nice to be able to defend such a position but I can't (yet).
The only thing I can defend is that god is currently not known.

Believing in God or not is one thing. God's existence or non-existence is another. — ssu

I think it is the same. The first Christian theologians posed God's existence as a proposition. Thus, the question is whether you believe God exists.