[quote=Jorick]
Agreed. Any stance of sure knowledge on an issue which has no evidence to back up one stance or another is utterly irrational.Ah, yeah, mistaken definitions like that are kind of common, which is what I was saying in a snarky way in the first paragraph of my last post.You've got it almost right.Agnostic = Lacking certain knowledge; "I think so-and-so is true" is agnostic, it acknowledges that you do not know for sure if it's true.Gnostic = Possessing certain knowledge; "So-and-so is true" is gnostic, it claims that you know for sure it's true.These are antonyms that are directly related to one another. As I said in my last post, fundamentalism is just a certain kind of gnosticism.Fundamentalism = Extremist stance in a wider belief, typically that every tenet is literally true and they brook no question. Expressions of fundamentalism are always gnostic statements, because fundamentalists think they are guided by infallible knowledge.I don't see it as a spectrum on which fundamentalism could be a third point, because fundamentalism is a sub-type of gnosticism just as non-fundamental Christians who claim certain knowledge of the existence of their deity constitute another sub-type of gnosticism. The term "fundamentalism" is referring to how extreme one's beliefs are, not certainty or lack thereof of one's knowledge because it's a given that they are gnostic in their beliefs by the very nature of their beliefs. If you want to throw it into the mix, "fundamentalist" would need its own antonym to pair with it to make more labels along with the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic pairs, such as fundamental gnostic theist to describe those who view their holy book as literal truth. Then again, it'd be repetitive due to all fundamentalists being gnostic by nature and the likelihood that all those opposite of fundamentalists would probably be agnostic by nature. I think just using the term for those who are fundamentalists but not having a third tag to pin on non-fundamental gnostics works well enough.We probably would need just as many labels as the LGBT community if we wanted to give one to every sub-type that exists within each of those four major quadrants of beliefs. 
[/quote]

So to confirm I got this right.

Agnostic = Doesn't know
Gnostic = Does know
Fundamentalist = Extreme version of Gnostic

[quote=mdk]
Poorly-time-stamped video parlor cutawaaaay!!!I like to keep it simple. Do you believe in god? Yes? Column A please. No? Further request. Are you certain that there is no god? Yes? Column B. No? Column C. Now you have your theist, your atheist, and your agnostic, all sorted out (I put them in alphabetical columns). Your move, science!!\\\remind me never again to post in OT when the ambien kicks in. Spam can handle it. I'm gonna go
[/quote]

The very post you replied to, plus the posts before hand just said what Agnostic meant... and it's not in the way you're using it. :/

Agnostic = Doesn't know - Lacks full knowledge

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, claiming not to know for sure if there is a God or not.
You can also be an Agnostic Theist, not knowing for sure if your God is true but simply believing that he is.