Thoughts in a Haystack

Except paradoxes, things must be either true or false. But ones knowledge about the truths or falsity of something can have three values: 1) known to be true; 2) known to be false; 3) validity unknown.

Researchers deal in particular in finding out about unknown things. So it should be intuitively easy for them to understand what an someone means when claiming ignorance about any thing. Atheists just don't believe that god is a legitimate candidate for that category 3) above.
 

things must be either true or false

Which doesn't address how we know things are true or false.

Atheists just don't believe that god is a legitimate candidate for that category 3) above.

Which nicely defines the difference between atheists and agnostics.
 

How about "New Scientism?"
 

things must be either true or false

...I kind of disagree
 

There's a nice paper I recommend by Susan Haack, a philosopher at the University of Miami, called "Six Signs of Scientism". It's available for free download on-line. Might be helpful.
 

Thanks Carlos, an interesting read.
 

But ones knowledge about the truths or falsity of something can have three values: 1) known to be true; 2) known to be false; 3) validity unknown

Perhaps, but a a few important variants of (3) would be (a) "I don't understand the question", or (b) "I don't really know what know means", or (c) "I don't know jackshit". All of them seem to have the word "I" in common.
 

"…or not" is an inaccurate translation of Huxley in this sentence "Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge—it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."

Huxley's original definition is given thus: "When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain ‘gnosis’, – had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion […] So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic’. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the ‘gnostic’ of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society […] Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith." [copied from JF Derry, Darwin in Scotland, 2010].

"…or not" does not enter the argument because it is an assumed instance, whereas Huxley clearly states his position is only to accept things for which there exists proof. You cannot start at a position of assuming a deity: that is what is wrong with all theology.
 

Of course, but if you start from the position that nothing is (scientifically) known about god (and pobably never can be known), then being agnostic about god is a matter of course - even theists are agnostics. If they claim otherwise, they will either be impostors or deluded.

Only two alternatives remain, and for atheists it seems to be a package deal. You cannot, for example, believe in the pacifistic messages of the new testament but not in the miracles within it, or the god of the old testament, or the church(es). If you reject an one, you'll have to reject the whole package.
 

Um, no, those apparently aren't the only options.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2012/04/how-to-live-as-a-christian-without-having-to-believe-the-unbelievable/