Thanks. I figure that we have a choice as to whether or not we adjust these definitions in a practical way.

For me, the most practical and useful way to adjust these definitions is to alleviate this debate of the burden of proof issue.

I see 3 groups and 3 words and the 3 words need to be mapped to the 3 groups. The biggest group is the agnostics. This includes people of all sorts of faiths, including people whose faith is placed in non-religious things like math or science. Lot's of people "don't know" but are a part of a faith tradition. Then there's the people who have claims one way or the other. Some staunchly say that God doesn't exist and others say the opposite.

To me it makes the most sense to call the people who say that God does not exist the atheists. It makes the most sense to call the people who say that God does exist the gnostics, and everyone else is agnostic. The agnostic camp includes newborn babies who are neutral. Agnostic is the neutral position and agnostics bear no burden of proof.

That said, if someone told me "I don't believe in any God", I would classify that as agnostic, leaning atheist, but not atheist. If someone told me "I claim that there is no God", I would classify that person as atheist, not agnostic. Most people who self-identify as atheist are not operating under my functional and practical definitions. Many are operating from an etymological understanding of the words and while I love etymology and have found it to be incredibly rewarding, I don't see how it is at all useful for these debates and conversations.

A theism breaks down to mean without theism or without attachment to some theistic tradition that involves a God.

A gnostic breaks down to mean without knowledge.

If the words are used based on those etymological breakdowns, it's very easy for someone to identify as both and that's not helpful to the debate or conversation. Someone without knowledge can easily also quality as being without theism and vice versa.

I find it is far more useful to assign the labels to groups based on debate camps, i.e. absolute negative claim, absolute positive claim, and neutral position(no claim). With those definitions for those labels, the debate over burden of proof stops happening and everybody just goes on with their lives. The absolute negatives and the absolute positives quit bickering and the neutrals are mostly quiet anyways.