agnostic=i accept i dont know

Note: I am intentionally not using the articles "a" and "an" with "theist/ism" and "atheist/ism", as well as "a/gnosticism", due to "a theist" being easily confused with "atheist".Theism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Theism is defined as "Belief in the existence of a god". Atheism is defined as "A lack of belief in the existence of gods". Since having belief or lacking belief are true dichotomies (i.e. either "is" or "is not"), there are only two possibilities regarding belief. Everyone is either theist or atheist.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Further, this is how self-described atheists define the term. Since "atheist" can only be used to describe "atheists", if theists use the word to mean anything else, while applying it to self-described atheists, that is creating a strawman and is slanderous. Further, most atheists intend to convey the concept of a lack of belief, to interpret it any other way is to intentionally not understand another person. To put it simply, it's close-minded.Definition by Wikipedia community: https://en.wikipedia.org...Definition by American Atheists: http://atheists.org...?Definition by Reddit Atheist community: https://www.reddit.com...Also, this is consistent with both the etymology and meanings of the root and prefix. "A-" in Greek means "without" or "not". Ergo, atheist means "not-theist".http://www.etymonline.com...https://msu.edu...Gnosticism addressed knowledge rather than belief. This is true whether someone self-describes themself as "a/thiest" or not. The typical meaning of "agnostic" is "Having a noncommittal attitude toward the existence of god". As we can see above, that is not inconsistent with atheism. Someone can lack a belief specifically due to being uncommitted to belief. However, you can note that I addressed "gnosticism". Is this a thing? Yes, it is. Since "agnostic" literally means "not-knowledge", those with knowledge are gnostic. Gnostics "have a committed attitude toward the existence of god".However, the term is often used in regards to attributes of god, as well. Existence is an attribute, but if one were to say "If God exists, I know it must be good," then that is expressing knowledge regarding God. However, this is in a separate context. The attribute in question would need to specified, so this would be the more generalized form of "agnostic" being applied to theism - "I'm agnostic about veganism."Knowledge can also apply with a lack of belief. "I know there are no gods" would be gnostic. As with theism and atheism, there are two and only two possibilities: gnostic and agnostic.So, we have these possibilities:gnostic theist - "Having a committed attitude of belief in the existence of god" (e.g. "I know God exists")agnostic theist - "Having an uncommitted attitude of belief in the existence of god" (e.g. "I think God exists")gnostic athiest - "Having a committed attitude of the lack of belief in the existence of god" (e.g. "I disbelieve any god exists")agnostic athiest - "Having an uncommitted attitude of the lack of belief in the existence of god" (e.g. "I do not accept God exists [but don't claim to know it doesn't]")Since both a/gnostism and a/theism are true dichotomies, every person is one of those four things. There is noone who does not fit one. That's not to say people can't change beliefs, but there is no person who is not one, and only one, of those.Finally, I argue this is the most convient and useful way to define them. By having some vague middle-ground, it removes any useful meaning of them except at the extremes. Only a very very small proportion of the population outright rejects all gods. Therefore, the only use left for "atheist" is for theists to slander agnostics who hold no belief in any gods. If the word is only used for slander, frankly, you can define it however is most convient. You could define it as "a worshipper of Satan and eater of babies"; just makes it more extreme in intent; it's no more or less "wrong". It does not address their actual beliefs.Indeed, we can find that theists use a false definition, despite knowing it is not what is being conveyed, specifically to slander those who don't agree with the faith.http://www.christianpost.com...http://www.reasonsforgod.org...http://www.exminister.org...To summarize my argument, I'll say that definitions of words are maleable. What counts is what we intend to convey. Although there is always room for mistakes, to refuse to acknowledge what is intended, even when being specifically, clearly and unambigiously told "This is what I mean....", as with my soucres above... Well, it's just dishonest. If you specifically intend to misinterpret what is meant, then feel free to make up whatever definition most pleases you.