I can appreciate your linguistic precision, T-A, however, if one wishes to communicate effectively, one does have to recognize that using words with a definition not commonly used will obstruct your transfer of ideas. While the derivation of agnostic you state would seem to apply to every human, it’s far more general than the more specific one most people accept.
While we “know” only a microscopic part of the reality of the universe, even essentially all of that which we think we know is only done so at a high probability.
I have to disagree with your final parenthetical comment. As you pointed out earlier, they are spectra. As such, there is a range of belief from complete lack of knowledge to complete certainty. Most scientists who would say they are atheists would, on careful examination, agree that there is a probability, extremely (maybe ten to the minus 1000th) that a god exists. In other words, unless one falls at the 100% level of belief the existence or nonexistence of a god, one is agnostic.
I completely agree with the first paragraph. This is unfortunately one of the complications of being on the internet, you are much more likely to run into communities who use terms in very different ways then your IRL community. It is one of the reasons I am ever hesitant to jump into an online form like this. Trust me when I say I have a thorough understanding of the messy-ness of language. While this knowledge definitely helps me avoid simple struggles like senseless debates on semantics, it does make the concept of communicating through text only with a bunch of strangers a rather daunting task. So forgive me while I struggle to adapt to the lingo of this particular community.
As it still remains, the question was whether or not “I” consider agnostic theists to be the same thing as simply an agnostic. To which I still reply with a resounding, no. But if you prefer I can try to describe myself in other terms. I think that there has been a term thrown around here that might fit a bit better, a deist? Though, this is another interesting trouble of introducing oneself. I am an individual, not really a stereotype. Yet the only words I have to try to describe myself are pretty much stereotyping words. deist doesn’t convey who I am either…
As for your second half… Forgive me, I am confused… I think your last sentence summed up what I meant by agnostic, but I think you were trying to convey that the last sentence is not your view? is this correct? If it is then that is ok, we may simply have two different systems of epistemology. I will try to accommodate.
Danda, Welcome. Yeah, you could say that this is like a movie where someone hires a killer. You hang around me long enough and you will find I politely shred your views down to minute parts for examination… It can sometimes be a frustrating and unpleasant experience