i came across a video that said agnostisism is defined as the belief that knowledge of god is unknowable, and gnostic means that it is knowable. i left a few comments and i thought they might be worth saving so here they are.

me: oh? i interpreted agnosticism to mean 'open but on the fence for whatever reason', i find this to be the common default view of many intelligent, and psychologically mature people i meet, it isnt surprising when its a reliable way to navigate human earth life without being mislead, tricked, decieved, or sent on a wild goose chase either by others or ourselves. il have to go verify definition is correct ----- A few moments later ----- ai response with some edits to shorten it: the video is right that *agnosticism* is strictly defined as the belie that "knowledge is impossible," this means, "I am waiting for evidence to know." cannot logically resolve into it. if one is "open to new data" they cannot have already decided to trust, (believe,), that the data can never exist as agnostics do. while there do exist terms to describe the position ie: empirical agnostic / temporary agnostic, taken literally these terms seem more like placeholders because 'temporary agnostic' is a grammatically incorrect way to say "something cant be known, but only for now because i can know it given the right information even though it cant be known", in other words, its a contradiction of terms. terms that actually fit the stance Zeteticism, Derived from the Greek word for "seeker"/"investigator." In philosophy, a Zetetic is someone who suspends judgment and continues to look for evidence, rather than prematurely declaring that knowledge is or isnt permanently impossible as if they are omnicient. It is the purest term for "on the fence until the data arrives." Option 2, make a new term Evidentiary Neutralist Why: It explicitly states your position: your neutrality is dictated entirely by the presence or absence of evidence. (edit: i think in courts there is a phrase that means an impartial witness, that might fit too). ----- here is a seperate comment but is still philosophical ----- though efficient and good enough, english is stupid, prefixes dont always have fixed meanings. amorality doesnt mean u are immoral it means u dont assert a personal moral heirarchy to the things that happens in reality but navigate life according to your own values (a kind compassionate amoral person will do 0 harm but someone without that or without principles might do lots of harm despite both being amoral), to add, action is voluntary based on authentic self and choice, not obliged to some system of underlying good or bad aka subconscious attraction and aversion drives that are beyond ones own control, an intelligent sentient lifeform does not need a primitive mechanic to tell it to flee or avoid they use their awareness and discernment. in other words amoral doesnt mean against good moral values, it means u dont project value onto the world outside u as if u are god of value deciding what is right and wrong and valuable and not in a world u dont have direct access to. all that rambling just to say, u cant apply the same system of the prefix a to everything and know what it means, it means different things in different circumstances hence a when applied to gnostic doesnt mean without projection it means projection in the other direction. see english is stupid and illogical because it follows inconsistant rules, honestly we need a new english because the definitions do not match in any way the spellings of the word. (edited)