Agnostics

[FatAndFaithless]

If you do not believe the cat is alive, that does not make you a dead-ist, and if you do not believe the cat is dead, that does not make you an alive-ist.  Not accepting one claim is not the same as affirming the opposite.

Fine.  Then by the weak definition, I'm an agnostic a-dead-ist and an agnostic a-live-ist.  Either way, the beliefs rendered are conditional on the form of question asked, but the agnostic position is alive and well.  Therefore, I would identify myself by the consistent agnostic position, and not by the inconsistent weak a-dead-ist or a-alive-ist positions.

Again, if there was a cultural skew toward one, I might find it convenient to declare myself against it-- so no offense to those who see in weak atheism some real utility.  But in my background, there's so little skew that I wouldn't bother taking a contrary position-- agnostic is good enough.

When it comes to the cultural thing, that I can totally understand - if you don't have religion thrust into your face every time you read a political speech or watch a news story then I can get why it might not be such a self-identifier.

But the bolded part above - that's what I was getting at, you're positions are the same as mine, but the terms can get jumbled and confusing, which is bound to happen sometimes.  But, when someone asks you "Do you believe the cat is alive?", all they're asking you about is specifically your position regarding the statement "The cat is alive", and vice versa for the other way round.  The question is almost always formed this way, in this conditional structure, and the agnosticism of the position doesn't really enter into it. They aren't asking "do you think it's possible to gain knowledge" about the cat being alive, they're just asking if you accept it as true or likely true.