Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.

[TheHuxleyAgnostic]

For any claim: X, you can believe X is true, believe X is false, or have no belief either way. 

Person A: belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person B: no belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person C: no belief X is true, belief X is false

You can do it, if you want, but I think it's nonsensical to pretend B and C are the same, just because they share "no belief X is true", when B also shares "no belief X is false" with A. B is neither, but shares a commonality with both.

---

Rofl. That's not how the word "atheist" was put together. 

16th century: "Atheos", in full, was taken from the ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. 
17th century: "Theos" was taken from ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. There was no freaking word "theist" to attach an "a" prefix to, for almost 100 years. 

The ancient Greeks didn't have the word "agnostic", either. You're rewriting history. 

19th century: Huxley puts together "agnostic" and "agnosticism", and defines his terms. 

20th century: The likes of George H Smith (implicit, explicit, weak, strong, a-theism) and Antony Flew (negative and positive a-theism), acknowledge the common usage, acknowledge that they're presenting new, or uncommon, definitions, and acknowledge they're hijacking the agnostic position, as they push their a-theist definitions. 

21st century: A-theists pretend their definition is the original, and rewrite history.

Rofl, that's exactly how the word is formed. It has nothing to do with what existed in ancient Greek times or when exactly the word was fully formed. It was formed out of Greek word parts that we have strict definitions for.

"Atheos" before the "ist" was added is not just one word part. It is "A-" and "theos". Like that, it just means "without god". "A-" "The" and "-Ist" all together means "without belief in god". Do you understand how Greek word parts work?

It doesn't matter what Huxley said the full word "agnostic" meant, either, because that just means he misused the Greek word origins. It doesn't matter how certain strong atheists defined atheism, either, because that just means they were also misusing Greek word origins.

But please continue quoting Huxley, Smith, and Flew. I care so much.

You'll be fun here

Yeah, you're the one that doesn't seem to understand how suffixes work. And, no matter how many times you assert it, you can't attach a prefix to a non-existent word. 

John Florio, A World of Words (1598)
Atèo, Atheo, Atheista, an atheist, a miscreant, godles, one that thinkes there is no god.

Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1611)
Athée: m. An Atheist; one that beleeues there is no God.

John Bullokar, An English Expositor (1616)
Atheist. He that wickedly beleeueth there is no God, or no rule of Religion.

Henry Cockeram, English Dictionary (1623)
Atheist. That thinks there is no God, or rule of religion.

Thomas Blount, Glossographia or a Dictionary (1656)
Atheist ( from the Gr ἄδεος. id est Sine Deo, godless) he that beleeves there is no God or rule of Religion, and that the soul dies with the body.

You seem to care. You're using the a-theism terms they promoted.