Agnostic: a pointless term?

[bennyboy]

My problem with the people describing themselves as Agnostics, is that they think there are three options:

Atheist - Believes no God exists
Theist - Believes a God exists
Agnostic - Doesn't know

Which is incorrect, yet I'd say this is sadly how the majority of people view it.

This would probably be fine if self described Agnostics didn't turn around and start accusing Atheists of being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that they definitively know a God doesn't exist. (e.g. David Mitchell)

I don't think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that you definitely know a God doesn't exist. I think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in your childlike definition of the linguistic problem involved, and the actual reasons people prefer to be called agnostic and not atheistic.

My own choice of the agnostic position involves a consideration of many things: the limitations of language, the choice of who gets to define what words mean, the way human beings collect information (and what information they probably can't collect), the actual human experiences that might have been thought of as spiritual in the past, etc. It also includes the context for the question-- who's asking it, and why's it being asked? What information about me is the question actually meant to reveal?

The simplest context is just refusing to answer an ill-defined question:
You: Do you believe in God?
Me: What do you mean?
You: Whatever you want it to mean. . . ya know-- God.
Me: Then I don't know. I'm not in the mood to invent your strawman for you.