I will agree with this to an extent in that the general population are either theists, (and thus vastly misguided), or those that incorrectly find the distinction in the words atheist and agnostic. Unfortunately it is a common misconception. I don't argue against you that it's common understanding, but it is a misconception. As an example I will state that I am not an agnostic. I am of the view that if a god entity exists that it is, or will be, possible to know that it exists. If for instance the OT is an accurate depiction of history then it is safe to say that many humans - Noah, Moses etc actually "knew" god existed because they apparently had conversations directly with it. Many modern day christians claim the same thing - that they have knowledge of this entity in that they communicate with each other. In saying I cannot be labelled an agnostic. The problem is that the "common understanding" is that an agnostic is what we call weak atheism. I concur with common definition, my argument number 1 states that those common definitions are misguided. This seems to be an identical argument to number 1. I will not argue commonality with you, but commonality does not mean accurate. Your argument number 3 contains a contradiction in the form of "definitely" and being open to alternate possibility. As for one other statement: "Any rational individual is reasonable enough to be open to the possibility that they can be proven wrong and admit it." Needless to say, the world is not full of rational individuals. There must, and is, a line that distinguishes the differences in views. It need to be said that if you're half human, half fish you can be called neither a fish or a human. A term must exist to distinguish you from the other two. It is commonly held that the term is agnostic, but as explained that is inaccurate. Seemingly it is a contention of disagreement between the strong atheists, the theists and those that are ultimately neither. Strong and weak atheism is not a new thing, indeed it stretches back decades - albeit under different terms, (negative/positive atheism). Dawkins actually disagrees with the strong/weak terminology but still categorises himself as a "de facto atheist" and not a strong atheist - thus a distinction in itself. That such a distinction exists and needs to exist is undeniable, but yes... we can argue over what specific words would please you and the general population best. You use the term "non theist", but that applies to everyone, yourself included that is not a theist even though we have our differences. It is simply insufficient. Not at all - and it also seems a tad unfair to blame infidel when the distinction between atheists has been in use since 1949. If you read my first post you'll see I stated this has all been done before. A search would have saved time and hassle.