Agnostics

[Excited Penguin]

Because your beagle won't ever evolve a mind capable of understanding and reacting to theism, whereas a baby will. Like I just said, atheism is merely a convenience. We call atheists those thinking minds that either will one day or already do understand theism, but are not theists. Most of language works like that, it is an utility. Don't search for deeper meanings.

So a fertilized egg is atheist if it has human DNA, because it will eventually have the capacity of reacting to theism?

Anyway, let's get back to agnosticism.  It is my position that the brain can hold contrary positions-- part of the brain believes in God, part does not.  When the agent answers a God question, even a very specific one, how is the singular agent supposed to represent an awareness of this internal division?  Should he say he does in fact hold the idea?  That he holds the contrary idea?  That he holds both?  That he cannot resolve the question in a coherent manner?

Here's another example.  What if in different contexts, different parts of the brain "light up."  What if, whenever you go to church, you get a funny feeling that you can readily believe is the presence of God, especially due to a Christian upbringing.  But when you study the physical universe, and consider scientific evidence, you know you won't find any evidence for God.  Do you believe, disbelieve, lack a belief?  How is one to word this?  Can you say, "At this moment in time, I lack a belief in God, but last Sunday I held a belief in God, and I think next Sunday I will probably believe that again"?

Now, I'm not talking about which view is sensible or correct-- only the possibility that a single thinking agent can be aware of holding multiple, and contrary beliefs.  Will you say such a person is schizophrenic or dysfunctional, or acknowledge that due to complexities of the brain, a state in which a simple question cannot be simply answered is a reality?

Again, I refer you to the convenience of language. If you are an atheist most of the time, then that is what you should call yourself. If one a scale from 0 to 100, 0 being you don't believe in (any) God at all, 100 being you completely believe in (a) God, you are under the 50 mark, then you should call yourself an atheist and vice versa.

You are looking to debate language, which is a worthy goal, not one you fulfill by hiding behind the meaningless(by itself) label agnostic though.