Jeff and AdventPhantom nailed it. I'm so glad people are finally starting to understand the real meaning of the word, instead of throwing it around as a vague alternative to atheism and theism (which it is not).
I know. But that image posted by Jeff really cuts through the BS, and is in standing with the root meaning of the words. Gnosticism concerns knowledge of god(s), theism concerns belief in god(s). Knowledge and belief, two different things.
Definitely. The only problem I have with the illustration is the "weak" and "strong" designation under each classification. I absolutely feel strong in my beliefs even though I fall within the realm of agnostic. Just because there's no tangible proof to verify knowledge doesn't diminish one's beliefs. I think the "weak" and "strong" should be removed.
Exactly. I generally don't have a problem with people of faith or those without unless they claim gnosticism. It is unreasonable either way. I've personally chosen agnostic theism.
I don't think gnostic atheism even exists or is possible... how does an atheist get divine knowledge? That's like saying "God revealed to me directly that he does not exist". =P
Agnostic is the lack of knowledge. So say if a person has no tangible proof of the existence of God, nor proof that a God doesn't exist, they would be classified as Agnostic. They simply don't know and won't make judgements based on that lacking evidence.
Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?
Edit: This pic is more elaborate: