Why Agnostic?

[Ryft]

How is saying that God is unprovable a "measure of doubt"? It's not. It is an admission that given the limits of human knowledge you cannot know anything absolutely, because everything could just be a result of Last Thursdayism

You asked the question, and then answered it. That's handy. If you think that the existence of God literally cannot be proven because "everything could just be a result of Last Thursdayism," therein lies the measure of doubt; i.e., you actually are not 100% certain that your God-belief squares with reality. But certainty in this respect, you countered, "has nothing to do with whether the concept is true or not." Ah, but it does if (a) true means that which corresponds to reality, and yet (b) for all you know "everything could just be a result of Last Thursdayism."

Thinking about it, I take back my statement about an apatheistic world being atheistic. It's not.

I argue that there is no middle ground. A person is either atheistic or theistic, because there is no third option; a person either views the world as though God exists (theistic) or views the world as though God does not exist (atheistic). And a Deist will not help your argument because they do believe a God exists (theistic). Such a God does not matter in the day-to-day world and is not invested in our human experience, true, but a Deist does view the world as though God exists, falling under Agnostic (Weak) Theist.

The reason why the apathetic fall under "de facto atheists" is because they view the world as though God does not exist. How the world got here, morality and values, how they know and so forth, none of these sort of questions are ever referenced to a God. They go through life as though no God exists. On the other hand, someone who is theistic, who does view the world as though God exists, has by the very nature of the case given the issue some thought and reached some manner of conclusion; ergo, not apathetic.

So I would change your 3 to just "Apatheist" ...

I agree, in the sense that the "agnostic" part would seem to imply that they have given the issue some measure of thought (i.e., enough to conclude, to some degree or another, that we have either insufficient or no epistemic access). So it should read simply Apathetic Atheist. But I still reject the "apatheist" term because the apathetic are de facto atheists, since any theistic conclusion by nature carries the implication of having "given the issue some thought and reached some manner of conclusion; ergo, not apathetic."

There is also no need to use words like "weak, strong" because the agnostic/gnostic part already covers that.

I used the terms parenthetically to describe how gnostic and agnostic are being used. "Agnostic" could conceivably stand alone, though even that is debatable, but I feel it necessary to distinguish "Gnostic" from the sense of pertaining to Gnosticism, a very different thing.

... removing the pronouns, since god(s) may not have genders; and changing the "worldview" to belief, since it is easier for people to understand

Bah. Fuck political correctness. I use the masculine pronoun not because God has a gender but because (i) pronouns eschew tedious repetition of the word God, (ii) the English language has a very long history, until a few decades ago, of the masculine pronoun also serving as a neutral or generic pronoun, (iii) the impersonal pronoun "it" excludes a number of theisms with personal Gods, and (iv) it uselessly confuses the shit out of things to say "he/she/it/they." (For that matter, so does using "god(s)" because then you have to parenthetically pluralize other parts of affected sentences. Bunch of useless obfuscating bullshit. But that's my opinion, humble as it is.)

However, since the statements being used are so brief, perhaps "God" can be used in both clauses; e.g., "Those who view the world (a) as though God exists, and argue that God's existence (b) cannot be conclusively established."

Also, my scale did not use the philosophical term "worldview." The propositions described how people "view the world" in which they live, a phrase chosen because it describes even those who do not actively think about the issue (e.g., only when the subject comes up). And I think the phrase "believe in" can implicitly connote a level of investment or commitment that a person may not necessarily have. For example, it's not entirely accurate to say that Deists "believe in" the existence of God. They believe that he exists but do not really believe in his existence. These are just some of the reasons why I chose to describe how they "view the world."

And maybe I should replace the word "argue" with the word "hold": e.g., "and hold that his non-existence ..."

So...

1. Gnostic (Strong) Theists:
Those who view the world as though God exists, and hold that God's existence can be conclusively established.

2. Agnostic (Weak) Theists:
Those who view the world as though God exists, and hold that his existence cannot be conclusively established.

3. Apathetic Atheists:
Those who view the world as though God does not exist, and think such issues are not a worthwhile pursuit.

4. Agnostic (Weak) Atheists:
Those who view the world as though God does not exist, and hold that his non-existence cannot be conclusively established.

5. Gnostic (Strong) Atheists:
Those who view the world as though God does not exist, and hold that his non-existence can be conclusively established.

Most theists I think fall under 2 (including Deists and Pantheists, etc.), and most atheists I think fall under 4.

By "conclusively established" I assume you mean rationalize without conclusive proof? Again the exact meaning is elusive IMO.

I chose the word "conclusively" to suggest arguing toward a conclusion that withstands critical analysis, in order to disqualify ipse dixit pronouncements and airy-fairy arguments that don't really have any clout (e.g., personal testimony or experiences that don't escape the biographical). And I didn't like the word "proven" because that only characterizes evidentialist arguments, ignoring presuppositionalist arguments which don't have God's existence in the conclusion. But the word "established" captures both types.