[PatrickHenry]

I think that the agnostic position is that it is impossible for anyone to know for certain if a god exists. Such an agnostic could still accept the existence of a god "on faith" (and thus be a theist agnostic) or find the idea of believing in something that cannot be established to exist silly and not believe in any gods (and thus be an atheist agnostic).

I've never encountered these expressions. They're clever, but I suspect they're redundant. Intelligent theists realize they can't literally prove their positions are correct, so they would all be "theistic agnostics" as you define the term. They would differ only in the degree of their personal doubts, but all would understand that proof is impossible.

In the non-theist camp, I'm aware of a few catagories of this position, some being weak versions of atheism, some strong. Each variety concludes that he doesn't believe because: (1) I don't know if gods exist; (2) no one can know if gods exist; and (3) I do know that gods do not exist. These are all different positions.

[js1138]

Positions 2 and 3 are too strong for my blood. I could envision certain kinds of evidence that would convince me I had witnessed a manifestation of God, even though no one else could confirm it. Not being John Denver, I haven't been privy to such a manifestation.