I'll read the article, but there is no differentiating between agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. Technically to be nit picky, both should be prefixed with the term agnostic, leading me to question its usefulness.
Personally I lean towards there becoming a point where the complete lack of evidence coupled with the ridiculous notion of a god, is knowledge enough to be certain, certain say 99.99% recurring. The 0.000as many 0's as you like 1 is really to appease those that like to play this game of semantics. (mathematically .99 recurring =1 anyway)
Just because something can't be disproved, doesn't give it any more credibility than any outlandish thing i could sit here now and think up.
Many theists do not understand the meaning and see it simply as fence sitting, so I suggest as well as being an anal semantic meaningless nonsense, theist misunderstanding of it, adds to their belief which needs all the shoring up it can get. "Look even the atheists are unsure"
Can you imagine an agnostic atheist waging a substantial sum on their knowledge changing any time soon, or any time in fact? Probably not. So though technically yes we all are, theists and atheists alike, it's redundant if that's the case.
I'm certain, at least the monotheistic god will never be proved or be disproved. Only proving to be the most harmful aspect of humanity's delusion in the invoking of the supernatural in place of actual answers.
The book "The incident that happened to the dog in the night" is written as if by an aspergers sufferer and one of his negative rituals was to think of all the things that wouldn't be, rather than the things that were. very time consuming and I can imagine if accepting agnostic atheist as more valid than to appease the semantically obsessed, the same could be true and the list would certainly be never ending.
Hitchens said extraordinary claims without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I'll read the article, thanks.
Sorry ranting, especially if irrelevant.