We need a definition for agnosticism on ILP.
I propose IDK.
This does not mean something is unknowable.
The old definition is inadequate and outdated.
What do you think?
Do you mean the acronym ‘IDK’ should mean agnostic? I think it’s quite a broad definition, like ‘atheism’ and ‘religious’ is. Individuals just need to elaborate on their own personal definitions a bit more, that is all.
“Agnostic” is just a word describing people honest enough to admit they don’t and can’t know.
Ofentimes agnosticism is mistaken for indecision or apathy, but they are three different things.
you are right.
you are right.
heh, that’s a phrase i wish i heard more often
People living in a world of pigeon holes have difficulty understanding a world without pigeon holes… 
Some of us are capable of doing both.
Of course. Then the purpose of this thread is? Does a re-hash of all the possible qualifers really change “I don’t know”?
I was proposing a definition for ILP.
There’s basically two definitions of agnosticism.
A) the answer is unknown.
B) the answer is unknowable.
If you want a definition of agnosticism for clarities sake, then I would think that the word would need to be sliced between both meanings.
Regardless if you personally think that something is or is not unknowable for all eternity; there are plenty of people in the world that do believe this.
For instance, there are agnostic theists (strange twist, I know) that anchor on the unknowable state of God as the foundation for the existence of their idea of Free Will.
Thereby, by extension, they hold a slightly agnostic slanted version of their theism where faith is chief among will rather than knowledge.
Technically, they are quite still a theist, obviously.
Then there are the pure B type agnostics that seriously think that such an answer is eternally unavailable to man, for whatever reason they may hold.
Fuck me, I’m babbling…sorry, sick today…anyways, the idea of a redefinition for clarity would require a diversion into two words.
Luckily the Greek is a great friend to defining concepts.
Agnostic:
A case stating that the answer is not known.
Agnosesthaic or Agnosestic (borrowing from the Greek Future Infinitive γνώσεσθαι form of γνῶσις [gnosis])
A case stating that the answer is in a state of never being capable of being known.
The Greek here is handy because you can declare the word in a position of Infinity, and off into the Future; which is, after all, what the B type agnostic is asserting.
Therefore, it would seem sensible that if we are going to make a distinction between the two, that this is the one that changes to reflect the definition more accurately in the word’s declension itself.
stumps plus others--------------
I propose that we use IDK for ILP to mean only I DONT KNOW. I am not saying anything else.
Well…then I don’t really understand why there was a thread opened for that since that’s already standard initialism in English shorthand.
I thought the point was that you wanted a more exclusive separation for the agnostic intention of stating that they do not know.
If you just want IDK to stand for I don’t know…well; it does. 
Yeah it kind of does already lol (laugh out loud)
for once you are right stumps-----------IDK------------i dont know.
I actually was pushing for a little more. i thought we could change the definition given in wiki
to do away with unknowable. That is in the spirit of true agnosticism 21st century. IDK if something is unknowable. there is hubris in saying god is unknowable.
I prefer the idea of it being the unknown. I’m happy to declare that I don’t think anything is unknowable really - that’s the optimist in me speaking though really.
I don’t know is all that can be said. Whether something may be knowable is part of I don’t know. How can I say knowable when I’ve just said I don’t know? Perhaps what is unknowable today may be knowable in the future, but how do you propose to know that? To say I can know what I don’t know is another round of conjecture.
yeah i’m with Tent
when i say i can’t know, i don’t mean that’s an eternal state of affairs (though it may well be, IDK) what i mean is that, given what i/we currently know, it is impossible for me to determine what is or isn’t the case
i don’t think that’s hubris, i think it’s realism