I just took the time to think about how to make it clear to you and avoid ending in a discussion about semantics through out several pages with accomplishing nothing in the end, arf. 

Just to go back to the main issue... you claim that being agnostic is a third position besides atheism and theism in which I completely disagree and I also don't agree with your definition and source, arf. I already pointed out why I see your definition as an issue, arf. I also don't care what a believer says as long as it contradicts or is not in par with the official definition of the word, arf. I would even disagree with atheists alike if they use a definition which is not the official one, arf. All I do is use and defend the definition in the dictionary, arf. And so far, I can see that you are not using those, arf.

Just to sum up atheism/theism and agnosticism, arf:

Atheism/theism: No believe / believe in God ,arf
Agnosticism: No knowledge about God existence ,arf  

So, before trying to argue for my position again with my own words, I just link you several source about my position on this issue, arf. Maybe they can explain it better than I can, arf. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040 ,arf

"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes clear that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god does not exhaust all of the possibilities." , arf. 

Or take it as a video, arf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vklm5NzW_3g ,arf

Even if someone calls himself an agnostic, arf. This doesn't answer the question if he believes in a god or not, arf. He only claims that his existence is unknowable, arf. Yet, he still has to answer the question: Do you believe in a God, arf? That's it, arf. It is binary, arf. 

Thus we also have agnostic theists, arf. The believe in God, but say that his existence is unknowable, arf. A belief doesn't require knowledge nor evidence, arf. Hence why it's a belief in the first place, arf. It requires faith, arf. 

We're talking next to each other. The problem you're not seeing is that the Oxford dictionary source you linked actually re-enforces my position. In many of their example sentences, they clearly seperate the terms "religious", "agnostic" and "atheist". That's a language authority that agrees with my original standpoint. Agnosticism is a clear third position. For an Agnostic can not only say that the existance of God is unknowable, he can also, very clearly, say he doesn't know. Thus rendering it clear quantum (many options) choice and certainly not binary (two choices).

So if you'd really defend the dictionarym you'd support my argument.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic ,arf

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

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism ,arf

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

Show me, arf. Where does it states it's a third position besides atheism and theism, arf. Show me that knowledge is on the same level / axis as a belief, arf.

Please post a quote, because I don't see it, arf. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief ,arf

"1An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
A religious conviction.
belief inTrust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)" ,arf

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/knowledge

"Facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." ,arf

I really fail to see where you got the infos from, arf. So enlighten me please, arf.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic

"Some of us are believers, others are agnostics or atheists."

"Until I can do so I am not an atheist, but an agnostic."

"All individuals (believers, agnostics or atheists) will naturally have a mixture to varying degrees, and they will differ across cultures."

Every single example treats Agnosticism as a third position. Clearly, you've been misinterpreting this definition.

.... those have little to do with the definition in itself, arf. Those are just example sentences you can catch online, arf. 

See also in the example sentences on atheism, arf:

"‘No matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system.’" ,arf

There, right out contradicts what the definition is saying, arf. 

You can copy that one above into google search and it shows you where it was taken from, arf:

http://www.letusreason.org/apolo7.htm ,arf

"Christianity has nothing to fear from atheism or agnosticism." ,arf

So, should I consider this a fact now, arf? 

I'm sorry, but, those aren't facts, nor what the dictionary's definition of the very word says, arf. You got it wrong, arf.

In that case, the dictionary gives neither conclusive evidence to me, nor to you.

We're both right and both wrong. Isn't that wonderful?

Let me ask you something, arf. Do you consider a belief and knowledge to be the same, arf? 

Belief and knowledge are two different concepts in my mind.

Good, arf. We think the same, arf.  

Do you agree with me in saying that, in regard to theism/atheism and agnosticism, one bothers with the question of believing/not believing and the other one with the question of having knowledge about a specific something, arf?

Edit: Let me give you an example. arf.

I say that I have a key in my right pocket right now which can open the door to my apartment arf. 
Do you believe my claim, arf? 
Can you actually know that I have a key in my pocket right now, arf? 

What are the possible answers to this questions, arf? 

What I am perceiving is that the only question you have answered through the pages is the last one: "You don't know", arf. But you still have to answer if you believe me, arf. And in order to believe my claim, you don't need to know. Thus, why there is no evidence required for a belief, arf. 

Not completely. I think both believing and knowing are both at play here. A believer believes in God and has religious knowledge (theological knowledge). An atheist doesn't believe in God and will most likely reject religious knowledge. An agnost will say there is no way to know if God exists (knowledge). So far we're on the same page.

But here is the contentious issue, and this is were definitions don't hand us anything tangible. An agnost might not believe in God, but because he doesn't know, he's uncertain. He might think there is a God, but again, he doesn't really claim to know there is a God or not. But an agnost might just as well hold a middle ground, where he doesn't think it's possible to know if there is a God and where he doesn't believe strongly one way or the other. This might be an apathic position (not wanting to bother) or a strong feeling (believeing he doesn't know what to believe).