Right, and lemme guess, there is only the color red, and no crimson, falu, vermillion, venetian, rosso corsa, ruby, sinopia, persian, persimmon, roufous, scarlet, burgundy, chestnut, coquelicot, right? Sorry, sorry, I'm struggling, because I
know that's a bad metapohr, but I'm really.. gosh.. I'm REALLY struggling to go down to your level here... I will now have to communicate in "glue-sniffr" for you to properly understand what I'm saying.
Okay, let's see if this makes sense;
Types of agnosticism (types. TYPES. Think of this as "sub-categories." Think of this as VARIATIONS OF. Think of this as "going into further detail")
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to
know of the existence of any deity, but still
believe in such an existence.
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the
noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.
Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
.........
So, what have we learned today? That there are different types of agnosticism! Wow! I mean, EVERYONE -- except you -- knew this already, and has known this FOREVER -- see, it's a fact, not an opinion. Actually, if someone were to just call themselves an "agnostic", flat-out, then another reasonably intelligent person would probably say, "what kind of agnostic?" Maybe not amongst your friends who think probably think Gumby is a religion, but in, like, real life, where people actually have conversations that consist of words and stuff.
So, let's review: No one agrees with you, you've proven yourself to not have any idea what you're talking about, you possibly don't even know how to read, YOU'VE LOST. Give it a break already.