What is Your Approach?

[Locke]

In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category.

One category denotes belief while one category denotes knowledge. To accurately convey a religious stance, both are necessary. For instance, one can be a gnostic or agnostic theist depending on whether they claim to know god exists. Some theists do not make the claim that god does indeed exist and are therefore agnostic.

Most people that identify simply as agnostic are technically atheists, however, I have met some agnostics that claim that that they don't even know whether they even belief if god exists.

As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Actually, the "atheos" is translated to mean godless, which still works within the defition I have stated.

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

Regardless, I find that irrelevant as language is not static. The word atheist has evolved to encompass not just those that deny god exists, but also those that are not certain but do not believe, since we have come to the point of separately labeling knowledge and belief.

Again, you're doing extra. Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and Theist encompasses everything necessary. There is no need to insert sub-categories.
The sub-categorization comes from the false dichotomy that faith and knowledge are in opposition to each other, when in reality they compliment one another. Faith is the confidence we have in something (be it God, or otherwise) that comes from a knowledge of that thing. As knowledge increases, evidence emerges and either increases or decreases faith in that subject. If it increases faith, then faith in turn motivates us to seek out more knowledge.

If you see someone with faith blatently denying the facts, then what you are witnessing is not faith, but ignorance.
And ignorance is, after all, the opposite of knowledge.