Nevertheless, in our society, people consider there are three positions regarding the deity, and by extension, religion: theism, agnosticism, atheism
That's the old system.
- Theism: believing that gods exist.
- Atheism: believing that gods don't exist.
- Agnosticism: not believing either way.
--in that order, representing "degrees of belief" or of certainty.
That's inconsistent with the system you've invoked. Theism/atheism/agnosticism is about what or whether you believe. It has nothing to do with certainty or strength of belief.
...
Also, if an agnostoic says "It can't be known", there is actually a tacit position "Don't ask me, I do not know".
That doesn't work either. "Strong agnostic" is the name for the people you're describing. They don't just say, "I don't know," but are likely to add, "And you don't know either. Nobody knows because gods are not knowable!"
Strong agnostics tend to the militant. They often believe that theirs is the only logical position. And, since it's the only logical position, they like to defend it. They enjoy telling other people how wrong they are.
So, "Don't ask me," isn't something you're likely to hear from a strong agnostic.
And if an atheist says "God doesn't exist", there is an implied gnostic position: "I know--there is no deity".
What about the atheists who don't say that god doesn't exist. I'm careful enough in my speech, that I'm usually going to say, "I believe that gods don't exist." That isn't a knowledge claim.
And even if there are atheists who state their position as, "God doesn't exist," that doesn't mean they are making a knowledge claim.
Those who want to make a knowledge claim are likely to say that they
know gods don't exist. There's no reason for you to assume that atheists don't know how to make knowledge claims when we want to.
So, in actual use, they are equivalent.
That's nuts. Your claim is that every non-theist is a gnostic strong atheist? How would that work? No non-theist can have doubt?
You cannot defend that position.
That being said, there are two kinds of agnostics, with regards to their lifestyles, and allow me to use a word pope Ratzinger has used: practical atheism. I, for example, am such an agnostic, I live as though the deity (version busybody deity 1.1) did not exist, and am therefore a practical atheist, I am a "agnostic atheist" (which by implication also means "weak/negative atheism"),
Weak atheism? So now you're using the new system:
- Theists believe gods exist.
- Strong atheists believe gods don't exist.
- Weak atheists don't believe either way.
Under this system, "agnostic atheist" refers to anyone who both doesn't know whether gods exist and doesn't have a belief that gods exist.
I, for instance, am an agnostic strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist, but I don't know it for sure.
So don't be saying that I'm a weak atheist just because I'm an atheist who is agnostic.
And that's a pretty silly thing to say anyway, since you were just arguing that all atheists and agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists. (You said there is no difference between them because they all claim to know that gods don't exist.)
and there are "agnostic theists", who participate in religion, some of which even have "faith" but are philosophically literate enough to know they have no way of knowing and/or that faith implies not knowing (within some hard definition of knowledge).
So theists get to be philosophically literate, but non-theists have to claim to know that gods don't exist? Why would you make such a claim? And why would you argue that agnostics are all gnostic strong atheists just before reversing yourself to admit that some agnostics are theists?
It's also noteworthy that most Christians say they "believe in God", and can add in the same breath that they have faith, hope and trust in order to keep their Christian path. That is, in ultimate analysis, absurd. They do not "believe in God" if they have faith, unless what they are betraying their own defense mechanism which allows them to sleep at night, so to speak.
I can't figure out what your point is here. Where is the conflict between believing in something and having faith in it?