Knowable = can provide evidence of a given fact. It's knowable to anyone. 1 + 1 = 2.

Your definitions are not wrong per se, and have good grounding in etemology, but they vary from many other definitions that people use. Hence the need to standardize these definitions instead of constantly arguing about them.

I'm not trying to connect spirituality with theism. I too think that non-local coherence can explain some weirdnesses; that was the intent of bringing up the idea of connectedness.

Yes, because it's the definitions in this "single dimension" that require standardizing. This site is called "agnostic.com". People on this site have a wide variety of definitions in regards to this "single dimension". So, let's agree on some.

Are not our rational investigations shaped by the very same combination of genes and experience (culture, in this case, being grouped with experience)? Are human beings truly capable of conducting purely rational investigations, divorced from what makes us who we are? Further, what 'spiritual truths' await our certitude? If truth is synonymous with fact, or reality, in what domain do 'spiritual truths' reside?

Then find some other word than "agnostic" to describe yourself, instead of subjugating it's intended meaning with your own.

The first definition of agnostic in Miriam Webster dictionary is: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable". I'm hardly alone in the way I define the term. So I don't know why you think I am "subjugating it's intended meaning" with my own.

Just trying to be inclusive for many who label themselves in that regard.

Clarifying and defining terms is the intent of the scale. Much ink (...pixels?) is unnecessarily spilled because there is no agreement on these terms.

@Annaleda - boxes? No... surely you can place yourself somewhere on the scale, which is meant to do nothing more than help refine our terms, which at this point are debated and discussed more than they need to be. By that, I mean differing opinions are applied to the same term. Let's agree on the terms...

@irascible - dichotomies imply duality. This is a scale, so your description of it is erroneous. Your description of yourself seems to fall somewhere around 5.5.

@hominid

You want us to agree to your terms and definitions only. No, I will not.

If you truly wanted this community to come together, you would have asked our opinions, instead of told us what we we’re going to do.

Part of debating and discussing is to share different opinions and beliefs. You are not going to start commanding my use of this site, or of my words and definitions.

And you are in the minority of confusion of terms and their uses. It’s only recently that a few of you are finding this an issue.

Can you expound? I thought Dawkins was on to something...

Agnosticism isn't framed purely within the confines of a god, but rather the nature of ultimate reality, which could be a god or could be something else. It could be a combination of gods and multiverse and who knows wtf else. The question of the existence of a god doesn't quite cover it.

Also, the idea that agnosticism represents that the existence of a god is equiprobable is off target. It's about whether or not it's even knowable. I believe it (actually, the nature of ultimate reality) is unknown and unknowable, which some refer to as strong agnosticism. Yes, when I'm talking about the existence of a god, I could go either way equally, but the framework of god doesn't reflect the essence of agnosticism.

I think part of my objection to this scale, which I first encountered on this site, is that it's deity-centric, and specifically seems Abrahamic-centric, which you made explicit to your modified version. It needs to be generalized.