Not according to this series made for BBC.

http://www.veoh.com/series/briefhistoryofdisbelief


But since you too recognize a difference confirms there is one.  I find it odd that first you say it is absurd and then you admit that some agnostics are agnostic.

Are atheist?  My experience is that this view is only held by atheists.  Not agnostics.  It is yet another attempt by atheists to ally themselves with us agnostics in attempted bid at being closer to 'normal'.  The extremist atheists here even attempt to drag us into their war on faith and believers.  Speaking for myself, I will have no part of that.

Was this your thread originally?  Sorry, I didn't notice that.

Compared to the extremist atheists on the board.  aka - D9 and Barney and their group.  Barney actually told me in a post that I should be glad to be associated with atheists.  Ones like him, no.  Atheists in general, doesn't matter to me.

Evidently I did not make my post clear enough.  My apologies. 

Frankly, most Theists I meet are really atheists. They have defined god in such a way that makes the concept of god unknowable and irrational.

Agnosticism fares no better.

Atheism is the default position and one that has never been disproven. It has also not been challenged except through force and irrationality. 

Agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism or atheism. Atheism or theism deal with the beleif in a supernatural being, whereas agnosticism deals with the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.  One can be an agnostic theist: believe in god by faith, but accept that it is impossible to know.(I submit a irrational position, but one that can be taken. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides, for example).

Huxley:
"...it is wrong for a man to say that he is cetain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.  This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism.  ...the application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgement concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty."

So, an agnostic is not only claiming that the supernatural cannot be spoken about, but that it CAN'T be spoken about - AND that without evidence, there is no need for belief.

Now, if you are agnostic and can't accept any evidence (since you believe it can't be presented), then your belief in god is likewise lacking. You lack a god belief: you are atheist.

Meanwhile, the theist can only define god INTO existence by using carefully wrought phrases to minimize the likelihood of refutation. This is not describing reality (or god) but creating a mental game in which one tries to find a few propositions that people are unable to attack and allow one to suckle on the warm pacifier of Faith.

I am going by the quote of the person who coined the phrase and the use of it today.  Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge (especially regarding the supernatural). It is a position that is not directly related to only god, but the supernatural.

And the last I checked, the "supernatural" is a meaningless term that has no basis in reality. Supernatural? Why not subnatural? Why not hypernatural? or hyponatural?  What does the non-natural look like or mean?

Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge of the absurd.

Personally, I having trouble determining when Faith EVER has a part in ANY discussion.  What purpose does it serve.
One definition of faith is "the permission one gives oneself to belief something when the facts don't support it". I think this is pretty accurate - based on empirical evidence, that is. 

Honestly, I have no idea what supernatural means. For example, radiation could have seemed supernatural 1000 years ago, but is now found to be natural. I can understand that there are things in our universe that I won't understand, or that we will never discover. I understand that we will struggle to "see" beyond a certain range (electron microscopes, geiger counters, telescopes, etc help, but may not detect everything).

That said, it all falls under the catagory of Natural. If it is part of this universe, and holds to its laws, it is natural. I simply don't understand the term "supernatural". It is a meaningless phrase, IMO, and for anyone to posit that it exists knows more about it than I do.  They must also have evidence of it, which they seem to be withholding.