"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

...both of these definitions could be used interchangeably

whereas there are other definitions that properly distinguish the difference between both terms and i just posted different definitions that are right at the top of google results to demonstrate

" atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheismis specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

which is more logical? to use definitions that do not distinguish terms properly(leading to the erasure of terms as someone in this thread has already done "Agnosticism is simply not a thing." ) or use definitions that show proper differentiation?

I'm not denying that, but I am also not shutting my eyes from the bad stuff either, arf. Even if it means to be petty, arf. 

It does conflict what you've said, arf. Atheism is not about spiritual faith or anything else, arf. It's about deities and that's it, arf. It has nothing to do with science, arf. But atheists do tend to use science to support their arguments, arf. 

Same goes for agnosticism, arf. I mean... look at the definition... it's all that it is to it, arf. 

Geez... here go the religion people trying to make up definitions that suit them.

Just read and try to understand once and for all:

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

If you don't like that definition and wish to make up your own about this thing called Agnosticism wich is the EXACT SAME POSITION AS ATHEISM (the lack of belief in a God), no one cares. Take ignorance where the sun don't shine.

You guys can debate linguistics all you want, but it's clear everyone needs some Wittgenstein here.

Clearly you don't agree on the theoretical definition of agnosticism. Understandable since some religious and atheist people think it's a weak middle position. As Wittgenstein would put it: "If you want to know the meaning of a term, look at it's use".

Clearly, when people self define as agnostic, they clearly mean they're not atheist, nor beling to any particular religion. So an agnostic can be quasi religious or just fully unknowing (or, depending on his/her interpretation: open toeverything). Clearly, the way the word is used for people self-describing as agnostic makes it a term seperate fro; atheism, while and at the same time not defining agnostics as being necessarily religious.

Clearly, jelling at people for not agreeing with a definition you gave, which is clearly not beased on real-world usage, is disingenuous. You could say I'm being irrational, but then I'd have to remind you one of the great minds of our times, Bertrand Russel, zho gave many a critique on various topics considering religion and who was specialised in mathematics and logic, self-defined as agnostic.

Clearly, agnosticism and atheism are two not fully overlapping terms.

 This is really getting boring, arf. Why is it so difficult to accept the official definition of these terms, arf. It's like people saying that a scientific theory is just a theory and unproven, arf. You completely disregard what it means, arf. I don't care what random people think it should mean, arf. It's simply not what it is, arf.

There is no middle position between believing in a deity and not believing in one, arf. That would be an illogical impossibility, arf. It's the same as playing videogames and not playing videogames, arf. There is no middle position, arf. Agnosticism challenges a different question, arf. But as long as an agnostic doesn't actively believe in a god, he will also be labeled as an atheist, arf.

Even an apatheist is still an atheist, arf. Atheist is everyone, every single person who simply doesn't believe in a god or gods, arf. 

And it was already explained several times why those are defined as they are, arf. 

I made my point, but clearly, I have to elaborate further. Definitions are made to encapsulate how language is used at a given time. Language is not made to fit definitions. Even most definitions of agnosticism encompass the possability that an agnostic thinks the existance of god is a possibility or even a probability (which is the middle ground and is the postion most encountered by agnostics themselves). The strange thing in your reasoning is: "Why don't you stick to definition" only to then immediatly denounce the possibility of agnosticism itself.

An agnostic is someone who leaves things in the middle, with all its possibilities and probabilities. To deny that is to be dogmatic. And frankly, as someone who has studied languages and studies ethics (which includes language philosophy), it's pretty clear there is a dogmatic argument being defended here.

And really, humand aren't computer chips, we don't work in binary.

If everyone starts to use their own definition of terms like he think it's the right thing to do so, we humans won't be able to communicate with each other, at all, arf. Simply because the meaning of words you use are not the same as I do, arf. Official definitions don't exist for fun, arf. They teach us what the meaning of words are, arf.

And it's not just that, if people start to intepretate words whatever way they feel like, they will bend / change the meaning of the word for their own advantage and use it against you, arf.

Again, just like I said about the meaning of theory in science, arf. Not just ones I had to listen to people who say, that evolution is just a theory on paper and so far of no value, arf. Do you want it to be like that, arf? People disregarding the official meaning, arf?

I am still aware that definitions change over time and so do languages, arf. But we define the words as we do, not just by the broad usage of the word, but also at how much sense their meaning does, arf.

Also, if you position yourself as an agnostic, do you believe in a god or do you not, arf? 

And in regard to the human stuff, we are causal beings, arf. Otherwise we wouldn't work, arf. Complete randomness in a biological lifeform would lead to its destruction, arf.

The problem is that you're making language out to be an exact science. It's not. For one, you hold that you have a "correct definition" of agnosticism. I highly dispute that.

We don't define meaning by how much sense something makes sense at all. Meaning of a term is derived from it's use. Thus the meaning is derived in a rational and scientific matter from how it's used. That's why some terms tend to change or be replaced. But even barring that, your definition of agnosticism is erronous.

I'm Catholic, but I've been agnostic for 7 years. I've someone would have asked me if I believe in God. I'd have said I wouldn't know. I did and I didn't. Many things in live are not binary. Many things are (often scientific), but many societal ways of life aren't, certainly concerning believes. This isn't randomness, this is chosen indiciciveness. If you say such a thing isn't possible, the use case, which concerns millions of people simply makes the impossibility of agnosticism, impossible.

Splitting hairs won't do you any good, pupper. You're taking a one-sentence definition way too conservatively.