Apatheists are by definition agnostic in the first place, so your first objection is flawed. To illustrate, if we suppose the contrary (i.e. that you can have gnostic apatheist) then such apatheists hold that the existence (or non-existence) of gods can be conclusively established, then these people must have either a belief or non-belief in God, and are therefore either Gnostic theists or Gnostic atheists.
So then we are left with what you term "apatheist theists" and "apatheist atheists". However, these are both covered in our description of apatheism (i.e. "they sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe'"). The point of apatheism is to be undecided, so I reject the labels of "apatheist theist" and "apatheist atheist" as actual labels, since they show a level of decision that is simply not there.
So then we are left with what you term "apatheist theists" and "apatheist atheists". However, these are both covered in our description of apatheism (i.e. "they sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe'"). The point of apatheism is to be undecided, so I reject the labels of "apatheist theist" and "apatheist atheist" as actual labels, since they show a level of decision that is simply not there.
