Agnostic VS Atheist

[cottage]

It seems that you still do not have a grasp of what agnosticism is, and your distaste for the concept is the big fat elephant standing in your way.

And I see you do not have a grasp on what knowledge is in epistemological terms. More on which further down.

‘Distaste’ is an emotional term and not one that I would use. Anyway, up till now I’ve been describing agnosticism as merely irrelevant, but that piece I responded to was worse, it was presumptuous and plain wrong. All things are not ‘uncertain’ and propositions concerning God can be true or false; and nor do we need a self-assumed authority with its own title presuming to inform of us of what is to count as valid.

Agnosticism is not saying that knowledge is limited to what we can experience. It is saying that knowledge is unobtainable (either at this particular moment, for that particular person, for this particular subject, or-- in contrast-- it is universally unobtainable.)

With respect I can see you’re not getting it! The reason knowledge is unobtainable is because we have only one means by which we can learn about the world,and that is experience, and nothing in experience is certain. If agnosticism has something different to say on the matter then I’ll be delighted to hear it.

You also act as if agnosticism is the default, like duh, of course that's what people believe. But I hardly find this to be a mainstream concept. People like to be sure, and it often never crosses their minds that they really don't have enough evidence to be sure. It is probably quite common among this sort of community, in which philosophical arguments are known and actively debated, but I assure you, we are a minority.

And, really, we have already went over this: Atheists can be just as irrational as the unicornists. There is nothing inherent in atheism that says "Thou must be rational and only make claims that you can back up."

I’ve said elsewhere that anyone can call himself an atheist and I gave some examples, some of which very clearly left reason at the door. So there is no superior standpoint (although atheism has one small advantage in advancing an overall argument that hasn’t to date been universally contradicted). Reason and logic are open to theists and atheists alike. But in the case of agnosticism does it really need a pretentious title to recognise and state that human knowledge is limited to what can be experienced? Most atheists come to that very same conclusion as a prime reason for disbelief in God; and what is more, they do so without having to be informed by a self-appointed authority.

 

[cottage]

My understanding of cottage's argument is that he believes that theists are (and must be) making a gnostic claim, and that atheists are (and must be) making an agnostic claim.

Because of this, he finds the gnostic/agnostic distinction to be irrelevant since (according to him) it is already encoded in the theist/atheist definition.

This has been the crux of our disagreement. I believe that the theist belief can be either agnostic or gnostic, and the atheist belief can be either gnostic or agnostic.

Belief in God is necessarily dogmatic, and takes the form of a proposition that is held to be true (the existence of a supernatural being) independent of our ability to experience it. Atheism draws upon experience and logical conclusions to deny that supposed truth. But one who has no committed faith in God but believes that the concept of a creator is a tenable proposition, which may be true or false, happens to be making a metaphysical statement and not a religious one. So in fact there is only one significant division, and it is between a committed belief in the existence of a deity on one side and the dissenters and doubters on the other. I also include in the former those who have the faith but don’t profess the (supposed) knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

Ridiculous statement!




That statement is the perfect exemplar; it shows the inanity that is agnosticism (if in fact it is the claim that agnosticism actually makes?). Just read your own words then analyse them in terms of their meaning and significance. According to you it seems that only agnosticism is able pronounce on ‘validity’ and ‘the truth-value’ [sic] of propositions. Oh really! And if that were not grand enough we then have a sweeping assertion that ‘all things are uncertain’; so presumably it follows that all those propositions examined by high-minded agnostics for their ‘truth-value’ are unsound! If agnosticism purports to be the arbiter of knowledge in the way you describe then it sets itself up as an object of ridicule and derision.

Reason isn’t a concept lost on atheism or theism, and discourse between those two camps has historically called upon science, metaphysics and philosophy without the need for intervention by a self-appointed referee. And if agnosticism thinks it is expounding the revelatory discovery that knowledge is limited to what we can experience, then thank you, but atheists were already aware of that fact.

I don't know where you're getting this from, so I'm just going to bow out.

 

[Falvlun]

And I see you do not have a grasp on what knowledge is in epistemological terms. More on which further down.

Why must someone only accept your definition of what knowledge is in order to claim that he does or does not believe that knowledge is obtainable?

I mean, do you claim that someone must accept your definition of God in order to determine whether he is allowed to claim whether he accepts the existence of God or not?

And the agnostic is the one who is being presumptuous? You have consistently made claims about what people must or must not believe and how they must believe it, and yet, you rail against agnostics for being arrogant?

‘Distaste’ is an emotional term and not one that I would use.

So, you can incorporate emotional outbursts about why you don't like agnosticism, but when someone points out that they were emotional outbursts, that is somehow inaccurate?

Anyway, up till now I’ve been describing agnosticism as merely irrelevant, but that piece I responded to was worse, it was presumptuous and plain wrong. All things are not ‘uncertain’ and propositions concerning God can be true or false; and nor do we need a self-assumed authority with its own title presuming to inform of us of what is to count as valid.

It is your belief that it is presumptuous and plain wrong! Simply because you believe that it is wrong, does not a) make it so and b) mean that others don't believe differently than you.

And so far, the only evidence you have offered up to support your contention that agnosticism is irrelevant is your belief that it is presumptuous, self-evident, and (in strange contradiction to your stance that it is self-evident), wrong.

You seem to take agnosticism as an attack against you personally. Talk about presumption! It is not about presuming to tell you what you must accept as valid or not. It's not about you at all. (Let that sink in for a moment: It is not about cottage. Repeat it, like a mantra.)

It is about conveying the beliefs of the agnostic. The agnostic may choose to attempt to convince you of his beliefs, but how is that any more arrogant than you trying to convince me of yours?

 

[Falvlun]

With respect I can see you’re not getting it! The reason knowledge is unobtainable is because we have only one means by which we can learn about the world,and that is experience, and nothing in experience is certain. If agnosticism has something different to say on the matter then I’ll be delighted to hear it.

It is impossible to keep your vying claims straight. In a single post, you claim that all things are not uncertain, and then here, you are claiming that all things are uncertain (since we only can learn things thru experience and nothing in experience is certain.) Which is it?

I objected originally to your claim that agnosticism is the belief that knowledge is limited to what we can experience because it appeared to imply that knowledge is obtainable through experience. In other words, it seemed to me that you were claiming that agnosticism differed from gnosticism based upon how knowledge can be obtained, and not the actual distinction, which is whether knowledge can be obtained at all.

You have clarified that your statement had further assumptions:
Premise 1: Experience is the only way in which to obtain knowledge
Premise 2: Experience is uncertain.
Premise 3: Since experience is uncertain, we have no reliable method to obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: Knowledge is unobtainable (agnosticism)

Premise 2 does not necessarily follow from Premise 1 (it is a further assumption), and without 2, there is no 3. Someone could easily accept Premise 1 and believe that experience does give us certain information, thereby making knowledge obtainable. This is why it is imprecise to define agnosticism simply by Premise 1, which is what you had done and why I had called you on it.

 

[Falvlun]

I’ve said elsewhere that anyone can call himself an atheist and I gave some examples, some of which very clearly left reason at the door. So there is no superior standpoint (although atheism has one small advantage in advancing an overall argument that hasn’t to date been universally contradicted). Reason and logic are open to theists and atheists alike. But in the case of agnosticism does it really need a pretentious title to recognise and state that human knowledge is limited to what can be experienced? Most atheists come to that very same conclusion as a prime reason for disbelief in God; and what is more, they do so without having to be informed by a self-appointed authority.

I distinctly remembering you argue that atheists only have rational reasons for their atheism and rejecting my possible irrational reasons for which someone could become an atheist. Perhaps you could point me to the post where you conceded someone can be an atheist for irrational reasons.

How is the title "agnostic" any more pretentious than "atheist"? Is the "atheist" a pretentious title for those who believe themselves to be a self-appointed authority for informing people that they (the atheists) don't believe that god exists?

You have consistently maintained that agnosticism is a self-evident position, but have not supported this. You have yet to respond to my contention that it really isn't a mainstream position. Most people do, in fact, believe that knowledge is obtainable, and that they know things for certain. How is it arrogant to report that you don't believe that knowledge is obtainable?

EDIT: And why, when discussing what agnosticism is, is it relevant whether you find the position pretentious or not? This is even less relevant than whether you find the position to be true or not (one of your positions that has taken up a lot of this debate.)

 

[Falvlun]

Belief in God is necessarily dogmatic, and takes the form of a proposition that is held to be true (the existence of a supernatural being) independent of our ability to experience it.

It is held to be true, yes, but it is not necessarily held to be certain. I have run across theists on this very forum who hold that belief.

Also, most theists do claim to experience God; God is something that can and has been experienced, in their view.

Atheism draws upon experience and logical conclusions to deny that supposed truth. But one who has no committed faith in God but believes that the concept of a creator is a tenable proposition, which may be true or false, happens to be making a metaphysical statement and not a religious one. So in fact there is only one significant division, and it is between a committed belief in the existence of a deity on one side and the dissenters and doubters on the other. I also include in the former those who have the faith but don’t profess the (supposed) knowledge.

Blue: Why do you believe that all atheists believe that the question of god's existence could be true or false? Historically, atheists have been separated into two distinct groups: Strong and Weak. You have described weak atheists and claimed that they represent all atheists. What of the so-called "strong" atheists? Why do you disbelieve their existence?

Green: Ah! This is a breakthrough. So a theist can be a theist without claiming that she knows that God exists.

 

[Willamena]

All things are not ‘uncertain’ and propositions concerning God can be true or false; and nor do we need a self-assumed authority with its own title presuming to inform of us of what is to count as valid.

While all things are 'uncertain,' it is impossible for the agnostic to either assume or assert a position of authority on this matter --if you want to "know what counts as valid," look to the atheist or the theist. That's their domain.

With respect I can see you’re not getting it! The reason knowledge is unobtainable is because we have only one means by which we can learn about the world,and that is experience, and nothing in experience is certain. If agnosticism has something different to say on the matter then I’ll be delighted to hear it.

Agnosticism says, being an empiricist doesn't make you right. It just makes you an empiricist.

 

[cottage]

Are you seriously making a stink because I didn't include "logical problems" in addition to "empirical evidence" in that one sentence? I would think that it was obvious I was objecting to the fact that you limit the reasons someone can give for their being an atheist, rather than what you specifically chose. In addition, I gave a quote of yours which gave both of your reasons, so it was obvious I was including both your reasons in my arguement.

You have stated, multiple times, that all atheists doubt that god exists because of a lack of empirical evidence and logical problems. Here's another of your reason-for-doubt limiting quotes, from post 291:

Those are my views precisely. And as for ‘making a stink’ (an angry interpretation, that!) I hoped to make it clear that I have never claimed that atheism, or my own sceptical views, are based upon a lack of empirical evidence’, but go hand-in-hand with the logical arguments, the twin concepts that underpin atheism. And I’m sure I can find you many more of my quotes and arguments in that same theme if you’re interested?

Do you concede, then, that atheists can doubt the existence of gods for reasons other than lack of empirical evidence and logical problems?

I don’t ‘concede’ what is already blindingly obvious! Jimmy Whatsit says he is an atheist because his big brother says there is no God, and Fred Bloggs is an atheist because RC priests have been convicted of ungodly and immoral practices. Young Kevin Smith is an atheist because belief in God isn’t cool, and he likes to appear reactionary. And in another sense any non-theists may also describe themselves as atheist. Now, are those folk allowed to call themselves atheists? Why not, as long as they don’t adopt a self-contradictory belief in God. But the fact of the matter is that atheism exists for perfectly rational reasons and that is because, evidentially and logically, the case for theism cannot be shown to be true. So whatever specific reasons people give for being atheists the logical and rational arguments still obtain. Why? Because self-evidently if God were factually evident and logically certain then those arguments would be proved demonstrably false.

I don't think that higher authority or the problem of evil fall under logical problems, since it is possible that we are wrong that they are a problem at all, and as you have so argued, it cannot be Truth if it is possible for it to be wrong.

They are both of them a logical problem, if that is what the theists are arguing!

I also don't know why you would dismiss the voices, and I'm assuming, other "illogical" arguments, such as a desire for rebellion. You are taking the extremely biased, and incorrect, stance that atheists only use rational means to justify their atheism.

I’m saying nothing of the sort, and I refer you to my comments on this matter further up the page. On any subject there will always be people who render incoherent, absurd or unsubstantiated arguments or opinions, but that doesn’t take away from the facts or negate the overwhelmingly more reasoned, logical case that is mad for atheism.

Really, cottage. When people say they believe something, does that automatically mean that they are absolutely confident that it is true? No, it does not.

And you have still not given any coherent reason why belief in God should be treated any differently. For some people, yes, it is considered certain, for other people, it's not. I don't see why some people should dictate how other people have to believe in God, whether they be other theists or cottage.

As a sceptic my every argument on this forum is to the effect that truth cannot be treated differently, but an individual’s level of private faith is not my concern. I am only interested in the asserted claims and propositions. When I’m informed that God exists, I want to know how it is ‘true’ that God exists. If the respondent replies it is true because he/she confidently believes it to be true then the vacuity of the claim speaks for itself. And frankly it is utterly ridiculous to say that by pointing up the definition I’m dictating how people are to believe in God. My argument is with the stated proposition and not with the minutiae of people’s beliefs.
A theist is someone who asserts or agrees with the proposition that God exists. You either accept the proposition or you do not. And if you don’t then by definition you are not a theist.

 

[cottage]

Why must someone only accept your definition of what knowledge is in order to claim that he does or does not believe that knowledge is obtainable?

Nobody has to accept my definition of anything, but I’m saying to you that certain knowledge is where it is impossible for information concerning the experiential world to be false, and if you disagree with that I’ll be very pleased to hear your objections. And what does it mean to say someone ‘claims’ to believe a thing? If a person says they believe a thing then why should I disbelieve them? I have no reason to doubt that those who say they believe in God do in fact believe in God. I’m not interested in what people ‘claim to believe’ but in what they claim to be true.

And the agnostic is the one who is being presumptuous? You have consistently made claims about what people must or must not believe and how they must believe it, and yet, you rail against agnostics for being arrogant?

Wrong! It isn’t about what people believe, but the asserted proposition. And ‘arrogant’ is not a word that I’ve used.

So, you can incorporate emotional outbursts about why you don't like agnosticism, but when someone points out that they were emotional outbursts, that is somehow inaccurate?

I suspect we’ve a long, long way to go yet; so I think you need to calm yourself down and try to enjoy the debate. Emotion has nothing at all to do with this discussion, which concerns concepts, propositions and differences of opinion. And I’m saying that agnosticism is an irrelevance, and it (the concept) is also presumptuous if it is expressed in those particular terms that I responded to.

It is your belief that it is presumptuous and plain wrong! Simply because you believe that it is wrong, does not a) make it so and b) mean that others don't believe differently than you.

And so far, the only evidence you have offered up to support your contention that agnosticism is irrelevant is your belief that it is presumptuous, self-evident, and (in strange contradiction to your stance that it is self-evident), wrong.

You are constantly harking back to one contributor’s post, possibly I suspect as a diversionary tactic. The presumptuousness in that particular case was where a self-evident fact was presented as if agnosticism were the sole awarding body of validity. That criticism applied to that single piece of writing. My argument is that agnosticism is irrelevant.
Theism claims that God exists, a proposition held to be true independent of experience (which doesn’t preclude experience). It is therefore propositional. Atheism rejects any argument to knowledge of gods on the basis that it is not empirically or logically demonstrable, and while this is to say ‘god exists’ is not true, it cannot be taken to mean gods are impossible, for that would be a proposition that cannot be known to be true independent of experience, and the very same charge that is laid before theism. Agnosticism has nothing to say on the matter other than it agrees that we have no way to go outside experience or to make truth claims about the world. And make no mistake about this: agnosticism has an inescapable religious connotation and it isn’t simply concerned with the question of knowledge per se, for if it were a genuine epistemological quest, concerned with abstract concepts, then the disciplines of metaphysics and logic would suffice without the need to run up a quasi-religious flag.

You seem to take agnosticism as an attack against you personally. Talk about presumption! It is not about presuming to tell you what you must accept as valid or not. It's not about you at all. (Let that sink in for a moment: It is not about cottage. Repeat it, like a mantra.)

For heaven’s sake, none of this is personal. And if there is a mantra that needs repeating it is the generally accepted forum rule: ‘attack the post and not the poster’, which I welcome, incidentally. Now, I said it is presumptuous (as described in that piece) because agnosticism has no special authoritative claim to decide what is valid over and above those who argue for theism or atheism. And the piece was wrong, plain wrong, because it claimed that ‘all things are uncertain’, which of course is absurd (I won’t, unless invited, insult your intelligence with examples to the contrary). Understood?

It is about conveying the beliefs of the agnostic. The agnostic may choose to attempt to convince you of his beliefs, but how is that any more arrogant than you trying to convince me of yours?

'Arrogant' is your word, not mine. And you are obsessed, for whatever reason, with a particular post and my response to it, which doesn't form any part of my argument concerning agnosticism - unless that maverick post represents the generally held view of what is meant by agnosticism, in which case then, yes, my response certainly applies in general.

 

[cottage]

It is impossible to keep your vying claims straight. In a single post, you claim that all things are not uncertain, and then here, you are claiming that all things are uncertain (since we only can learn things thru experience and nothing in experience is certain.) Which is it?

I notice that with these ‘which is it’ questions that they nearly always, as in this case, indicate a misunderstanding. Wilamena said with breath-taking confidence (my apologies for the personal reference) that ‘all things are uncertain’, which of course is complete and utter nonsense. We have access to certainty, as in necessary and axiomatic truths, mathematics, geometry and tautologies. It is knowledge of the experiential world that can never be certain.

I objected originally to your claim that agnosticism is the belief that knowledge is limited to what we can experience because it appeared to imply that knowledge is obtainable through experience. In other words, it seemed to me that you were claiming that agnosticism differed from gnosticism based upon how knowledge can be obtained, and not the actual distinction, which is whether knowledge can be obtained at all.

Regardless of the classification I’m saying whatever we are able learn about the world is limited to the realm of experience, but that is not knowledge, ie not certain and true.

You have clarified that your statement had further assumptions:
Premise 1: Experience is the only way in which to obtain knowledge
Premise 2: Experience is uncertain.
Premise 3: Since experience is uncertain, we have no reliable method to obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: Knowledge is unobtainable (agnosticism)

Premise 2 does not necessarily follow from Premise 1 (it is a further assumption), and without 2, there is no 3. Someone could easily accept Premise 1 and believe that experience does give us certain information, thereby making knowledge obtainable. This is why it is imprecise to define agnosticism simply by Premise 1, which is what you had done and why I had called you on it.

I’m sorry but that is fundamentally wrong and it is most definitely not my ‘clarification.’
Certain knowledge cannot be had from experience therefore the major premise (1) is false. Thus it follows that premise 2 is valid and the conclusion (3) therefore is true.

 

[cottage]

I distinctly remembering you argue that atheists only have rational reasons for their atheism and rejecting my possible irrational reasons for which someone could become an atheist. Perhaps you could point me to the post where you conceded someone can be an atheist for irrational reasons.

Just found my saved response. Now posted: 349

How is the title "agnostic" any more pretentious than "atheist"? Is the "atheist" a pretentious title for those who believe themselves to be a self-appointed authority for informing people that they (the atheists) don't believe that god exists?

For the umpteenth time, my argument is that agnosticism is irrelevant to the religious question because it has no contribution to make to the polemic. 'Pretentiousness' doesn't inhere in agnosticism anymore than it might in atheism or theism. That one (deserved) instance doesn't an ideology make.

You have consistently maintained that agnosticism is a self-evident position, but have not supported this.

Please see 350 or read back through my responses, posts 250; 251; 257; 271 and 277.

You have yet to respond to my contention that it really isn't a mainstream position. Most people do, in fact, believe that knowledge is obtainable, and that they know things for certain. How is it arrogant to report that you don't believe that knowledge is obtainable?

I’m not at all sure what your point is here, or who ‘most people’ are. It isn’t ‘arrogant’ [not my wording but yours] to have the belief that knowledge isn’t obtainable, but that doesn’t require a special class with its own title to observe that fact. Joe Soap is quite capable of forming that conclusion unaided without having to label himself or join a club.

EDIT: And why, when discussing what agnosticism is, is it relevant whether you find the position pretentious or not? This is even less relevant than whether you find the position to be true or not (one of your positions that has taken up a lot of this debate.)

Oh do stop complaining! The pretentious comment applied specifically to one person’s definition of agnosticism. More to the point, my argument is that there are two and only two significant sides to the religious question - and agnosticism isn’t one of them.

 

[cottage]

It is held to be true, yes, but it is not necessarily held to be certain. I have run across theists on this very forum who hold that belief.

Also, most theists do claim to experience God; God is something that can and has been experienced, in their view.

‘True for me’ has nothing to do with certainty, ie something held to be true independent of our ability to experience it. But if it is held to be true then it cannot be held as false. So if a theist maintains or argues that God might or might not exist then that person takes the same basic view as the non-theists. And it seems evident to me that by definition a non-theist cannot at the same time be a theist.

Blue: Why do you believe that all atheists believe that the question of god's existence could be true or false? Historically, atheists have been separated into two distinct groups: Strong and Weak. You have described weak atheists and claimed that they represent all atheists. What of the so-called "strong" atheists? Why do you disbelieve their existence?

You didn’t read the quote properly! I said atheism denies that supposed truth [that God exists]. But the sentence you highlighted in blue isn’t an atheistic view; it refers to metaphysical arguments open to anyone with no theist or atheist axe to grind. And atheists, like theists, may believe whatever they wish, but atheism, strong, weak,or whatever, cannot demonstrate certain truth.

Green: Ah! This is a breakthrough. So a theist can be a theist without claiming that she knows that God exists.

Well of course they can!! The important distinction being that they avow God’s existence as true. I’ve had more discussions than I can remember with theists who claim God is beyond logic or God cannot be known while holding that his existence is a truth. Even the Bible states that God cannot be known (Psalm 125:3), and God himself says as much about himself in Isaiah 55:8.

 

[Willamena]

A theist is someone who asserts or agrees with the proposition that God exists. You either accept the proposition or you do not. And if you don’t then by definition you are not a theist.

The same goes for defining atheist, according to the OP. You either reject the proposition, or you don't. If you don't reject the proposition, you're not an atheist. All the reasoning in the world (whatever lead one to his or her rejection) isn't part of the definition.

That's not agnosticism.

 

[Falvlun]

Pretentious is a synonym for arrogant. Thesaurus.com

 

[Willamena]

I notice that with these ‘which is it’ questions that they nearly always, as in this case, indicate a misunderstanding. Wilamena said with breath-taking confidence (my apologies for the personal reference) that ‘all things are uncertain’, which of course is complete and utter nonsense. We have access to certainty, as in necessary and axiomatic truths, mathematics, geometry and tautologies. It is knowledge of the experiential world that can never be certain.

If I may: I didn't make an ontological claim. You turned it 180 and stood it on its head, not me.
Edit: (That's pretentious, but falls short of arrogant.)

 

[cottage]

If I may: I didn't make an ontological claim. You turned it 180 and stood it on its head, not me.
Edit: (That's pretentious, but falls short of arrogant.)

You disappoint me by that thoroughly dishonest accusation. It is outrageous and totally untrue to say I've somehow manipulated or changed your actual words. Twice you have used the term, 'all things' (in post 333, even confirming it again with post 348). There is no other way to understand the 'uncertainty of all things', which is an explicit statement, especially given that you had the opportunity to think about and rectify the error after the first utterance. Lambast my arguments by all means, but don't make false accusations in order to cover your mistakes.

 

[Willamena]

You disappoint me by that thoroughly dishonest accusation. It is outrageous and totally untrue to say I've somehow manipulated or changed your actual words. Twice you have used the term, 'all things' (in post 333, even confirming it again with post 348). There is no other way to understand the 'uncertainty of all things', which is an explicit statement, especially given that you had the opportunity to think about and rectify the error after the first utterance. Lambast my arguments by all means, but don't make false accusations in order to cover your mistakes.

My actual words were: Agnosticism looks at truth value itself...and assesses whether that has validity. To do that, it affirms the uncertainty of all things.

If you want to make an ontological claim out of that ("all things are uncertain") you certainly may, but it's not what I said.

I also didn't "rectify" it, I've been consistent in what I said. Agnosticism isn't about asserting the truth value of things, rather it looks at truth-value and assesses that.

 

[cottage]

Pretentious is a synonym for arrogant. Thesaurus.com

But 'arrogant' isn't a synonym for 'pretentious'.

'Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance than is actually possessed.' That is exactly what I mean by the term.

 

[cottage]

My actual words were: Agnosticism looks at truth value itself...and assesses whether that has validity. To do that, it affirms the uncertainty of all things.

If you want to make an ontological claim out of that ("all things are uncertain") you certainly may, but it's not what I said.

I also didn't "rectify" it, I've been consistent in what I said. Agnosticism isn't about asserting the truth value of things, rather it looks at truth-value and assesses that.

Now I really don’t want to keep ramming this down your throat because we all make mistakes, in your case the statement above (in red), which is actually untrue, but it is the fact that you accused me of changing or altering what you actually said that I’m finding difficult to forgive.
And you made no distinction between entities and ontological concepts; you used the term ‘all’!
Also you might care to explain what you mean by agnostics ‘assessing truth-value’, since you’ve already said: “if you want to "know what counts as valid," look to the atheist or the theist. That's their domain.”