Why Agnostic?

[Ryft]

Fair point. I then suggest that we add an additional note explaining that when we use the word "theist" we are not talking about the belief that god is a ruler of the universe, but about belief in god generally. This, I think, would convince the deists of their position on the scale.

The note on the word "gods" already addresses this point. What you are describing here is the belief in a personal God, and the note is supposed to assert that the scale is not limited to belief in a personal God (whether sovereign ruler or not). If the note is not clear enough, let's re-work its clarity:

The word "gods" in the following scale includes: belief in god (singular), gods (plural), God (personal), and goddess (feminine); and beliefs that "gods" are either involved or uninvolved in the world and its affairs (e.g., monotheism, pantheism, deism, etc.).

I think mention should be made about the modern (wrong) interpretation of agnosticism as some kind of cop-out, or an "I don't know what I believe" kind of answer. Agnosticism is all about knowability though; its general idea is that, given our limited status in the universe, we cannot really know anything in an absolute sense.

Fair point. How do you feel about this modification?

The word "agnostic" does not refer to either the knowability of "gods" or to epistemic apathy, but rather to ...

So yes, you are right in saying that it is about the subjective nature of arguments for god, but this is in itself a knowability issue (therefore a contradiction with what you said about it not referring to the knowability of gods).

I disagree; cf. Deism, which can present arguments, with questionable strength, for god's existence but denies we can know anything about him. It's a difference between what one believes (that god exists) and what one knows (what god is like). However, I do agree that the wording is inherently problematic, so here are my modifications (combining all suggestions thus far):

i. The word "gods" in the following scale stands in for the singular (god), plural (gods), personal (God), and feminine (goddess).
i. The word "gods" in the following scale includes: belief in god (singular), gods (plural), God (personal), and goddess (feminine); and beliefs that "gods" are either involved or uninvolved in the world and its affairs (e.g., monotheism, pantheism, deism, etc.).

ii. The word "gnostic" does not refer to the syncretistic religious movements of Gnosticism, but to the objective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."
ii. The word "gnostic" does not refer to the syncretistic religious movements of Gnosticism, but rather to the cogent strength of the arguments for the existence or non-existence of "gods" (i.e., the premises enjoy greater probability than their denials).

iii. The word "agnostic" does not refer to the modern interpretation of being "unsure" about what one believes, but refers instead to the subjective nature of the arguments for the existence of "gods."
iii. The word "agnostic" does not refer to either the knowability of "gods" or to epistemic apathy, but rather to the questionable strength of the arguments for the existence or non-existence of "gods" (i.e., the premises and their denials are equally probable).

To clarify this, consider in which setting the establishing of truth statements can take place.

Those who fall under the Gnostic Theist category would hold that a group of two or more people, when they are personally and actively involved in a discussion that examines the arguments for the existence of God, could be intellectually persuaded that the arguments conclusively establish his existence. That is to say, despite the background beliefs that another brings to the table, they hold that the parties involved can be brought into agreement that (i) the premises are more probable than their denials, and (ii) given the premises the conclusion does follow. Equally important to consider, there is no reason for anyone to think that this is done in a singular argument; i.e., it almost necessarily implies a series of arguments covering relevant areas. One does not build the roof without first building the walls.

So there is no way to account for someone who only passively observes the argument and is not personally involved (e.g., in the audience at a formal debate). Such a person could sustain objections that are given no voice—i.e., they are not heard and cannot be corrected—which therefore allows them to reject certain premises, and consequently the conclusion.

This is in contrast to Agnostic Theists, who feel that objections can be sustained even when given voice, that is, that certain premises are equally as probable as their denials and therefore the arguments are not conclusive.

There's just too many [variants] of the word agnostic.

True, but that does not provide us with any reason to accept all the variants as legitimate or valid. We can identify misconceptions and correct them, educating others on what the word is supposed to mean. Either they know what the word is supposed to mean and have reasons for their variant, which can be examined and critically evaluated, an exchange that can further both our understanding and enlightenment, or they didn't know what the word is supposed to mean and by informing them we have furthered their understanding. Either way, defending the meaning of agnosticism sounds more virtuous than the alternative.

I hold that it is possible to believe in a certain god as the creator of the universe but at the same time to deny his moral supremacy. Is this atheism?

There is a difference between whether or not you think it's possible to believe on the one hand, and whether or not you happen to believe on the other. An atheist can think it is possible to believe given compelling enough reasons, while not himself believing because he is not aware of any compelling reasons.

To me the god concept is [inseparable] from the moral question.

Whether or not X exists would seem to be a separate matter from whether or not X is a moral entity. If there is sufficient reason to affirm that X exists (by whatever criteria you hold), should you not do so? I cannot rationally deny that Charles Manson exists on the gounds that he is a morally reprehensible entity.

Your new scale would make me an agnostic atheist I suppose but, quite apart from it being a wishy-washy title, I honestly can't see the point because I'm about as hard atheist as you can get inasmuch as I absolutely believe there is and can be no god.

On this scale, the question is whether or not you think the arguments you have for the non-existence of gods are conclusive (i.e., the premises are more probable than their denials) or debatable (i.e., the premises and their denials are equally probable).