[Tom]

Originally posted by Lauren

No, agnosticism refers directly to a deity, which in turn refers directly to a sole "controller". Since I do not give way to that concept, I'm not qualified under the term 'agnostic'.
If anything, I'm "agnostic atheist", but I don't even strictly come under that.

Btw, you're also wrong about "To be agnostic you just have to believe there is more to the world than science can eventually prove" - because there is the agnosticism branch that understands that objectively these things don't exist.

You're kind of wrong Lauren (I've always wanted to say that, well without the kind of )

The basics to agnosticism is, to quote a definition, "the doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge". A god obviously plays a big part in it but it isn't necessary because agnosticism is concerned with knowledge rather than beliefs. A lot of other definitions use the subject of knowing whether or not a god exists, whilst many don't. If it was a crucial point it would be in all definitions and in some definitions is only used for effect to demonstrate the type of knowledge we can never gain.

In essence, agnostics don't care either way and think there could be something else, but there also might not be. We'll never find out anyway (well not in this life, assuming there is an afterlife) so its pointless arguing over it.