Hi, agnostic here :)

[Mister Agenda]

I think maybe we should separate two uses of the term 'agnostic' to minimize this kind of around-and-around, and avoid 'argument' from etymology.

Agnostic as a noun is a person who doesn't know whether or not some deity is actually real. If someone chooses to identify as an agnostic, I haven't observed much benefit from arguing with them about it. Knowledge and belief are separate questions, the agnostic is admitting lack of knowledge and not taking a stance on belief.

Agnostic as an adjective for atheist or theist gives an answer to both questions (Do you think the existence of a deity is knowable? Do you think a deity actually exists?).

Agnostic theist: doesn't know, believes anyway
Agnostic atheist: doesn't know, doesn't believe

Erin states he or she is undecided in her Religious Views. That's about as close to being a 'true neutral Agnostic' as you can get. If that's where he or she is, that's where he or she is, and it's not really productive to argue about it. In fact, due to the 'backfire effect', arguing with someone about their identity is highly likely to make them dig in their heels about it even more. Let Erin be Erin.