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. 

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 tzo not fully overlapping terms.

It's not. It is really not.

One decidedly believes there are/is no god/s.

The other doesn't deny there could be while also not denying the possibility of them not existing.

One definitively takes a side. The other doesn't.

In bold, it's wrong. It's a million times wrong. There is no belief in something that doesn't exist. It's the default position. 

Do you declare you don't believe the pink space unicorn? Flying pigs? Talking butter? No, because it is obvious they don't exist until proven otherwise.

What is so difficult to understand about this? Seriously... the poison they put in your heads... 

The ones that make the claim that god exists are the ones making a claim. The default position of any claim is to not believe it until proven. Therefore believing in the non-existance is completely redundant and doesn't have a part in this. That does not make sense (how could one even prove something doesn't exist?) and is not the definition of Atheism, no matter how much religious people want to misuse it.

If God is real and he is truly a loving father as Christians proclaim then it should be impossible for him to hide his existence from you if you truly ask him for proof with an open mind. It really is a black and white question and I am confused why so few non-believers actually try doing this. I dare every person on this forum to ask God with a truly open perspective for proof of his existence. I would argue, as a Christian, that the only possible way that God would not answer your prayer is if you 100% did not want to believe in him or if you are so disinterested that you can't be bothered to ask. If I am wrong, and you receive no proof, then you can use this as evidence to strengthen your non-belief (in other words, there is absolutely no reason why you should not try this).

No. Words are not dictated by their misuse. (yes, because these words have a meaning and are used with their correct meaning by everyone except religious people)

You don't get to say Apple now means Orange and people now have to accept that.

Words are already defined. Find a way to say what you mean with the existing ones. I know it's something of a challenge for religious leaders to do, but they have to try a bit harder.