This doesn't rule out blind faith. The position I am describing is
is an agnostic position called fideism: belief in God purely on faith. Agnosticism also only has to do with only SOME things being unknowable (the supernatural). Otherwise, personal experience

would be invalid as well. The view that one can only know from experience is a radical stance on the reliability of the senses, which is a completely different philosophical argument than the nature of truth.



This is circular logic, and it undermines the subtle intonations of the word belief. I feel a more adequate definition would be: a CHOICE to accept a PROPOSED truth. Yes, to know in your mind that a belief is true is (according to agnosticism) impossible because it is indicative of there being evidence, but this point is not relevant when attempting to reconcile belief with agnosticism.




What you are describing is more akin to epistemological nihilism.



Yes. He can never KNOW for CERTAIN. This does not rule out faith or belief. It simply defaults the logic to settling, without proof, on either A.yes, B.no, or C.no comment. Whether or not you've chosen C has nothing to do with agnosticism, it only has to do with your stance therein.



I define atheism (broadly) as the rejection of theism due to a lack of empirical evidence (there is no empirical evidence, therefore God does not exist), and I agree with you. It doesn't make you an atheist, and it was not my intention to imply that you were. If you were to take the stance "I find no compelling reason to believe in the existence of God, therefore i chose not to" you would be an agnostic-atheist.

p.s. I post "lots-o-words" because i have fun thinking about this stuff and it gives debaters more bits to counterpoint-- which basically furthers everyones purposes and helps us all consolidate and further our own arguments and sharpen our intellects. I assure you all that no insult or condescention is intended, and I'm not making an attempt to "look smart". I am be just havin' fun b*otches!

Food for thought:

If truth is relative, then what is it worth? Relativity of truth isn't agnosticism, it is existentialism. Truth, by definition, is absolute. A lie cannot be true based on relative perceptions. Truth is factual. Finding it is the only individual experience. The common mistake in the whole process is mistakenly suffixing truth (in the metaphysical/ philosophical sense: concern with ultimate reality) with unquestionable. If something can be questioned, that does not mean it is not absolute, just that perception is flawed in relativity. If one makes a distinction between scientific "truth" and pseudoscientific "truth", they are making a distinction of perception. Agnosticism is abstaining from decisions for lack of evidence. It doesn't mean, "Make up your own truth".

In my opinion, the first step for reconciling perception with metaphysical truth is this:
Being that perception is flawed, metaphysical truth requisites either a leap of faith or abstention from decision. This decision, is intuitive AND quasi-logical and is an A or B choice between opposing causal theories, or intentional abstention from either. Either--
A. The causal chain of events can logically regress infinitely backward (ergo, no un-caused cause or "creator").
Or--
B. It cannot logically regress infinitely backward (ergo, there was a definite beginning and therefore an un-caused cause or "creator", no matter what incarnation that creator personally takes.)

In the case of abstention, one cannot continue further on the search for metaphysical truth without revisiting these primal question. It is absolutely inevitable. Without this base decision, there is no foundation for any other belief.

Another ridiculous misconception is that agnostics are required to be atheists. Agnostics can be completely justified in believing in God and still calling themselves Agnostics. Agnosticism is a philosophical method that simply considers abstention from decision to be a legitimate acceptance in lue of proof. Instead of saying that, "God does not exist because you cannot prove he exists" an agnostic could also say "God does exist, but we cannot prove it" and still be an Agnostic. Just because the agnostic's common answer is "I dunno" doesn't mean it is the only one (or the most legitimate).

Ah.. those were the days... Or were they? Were they just the day? The years have inversely caught up with me.