[dhw] I don't know why you regard fideism as a sin. Ultimately, religious belief like belief in the creative powers of chance has to rest on faith, since no-one knows the ultimate truth.
Now personally I happen to think 'chance' is a better model of evolution, no matter how much some of us may misrepresent or misunderstand the concept of 'chance'. Regarding 'sin' - it was meant to be a joke.-> [dhw] .... games ... 
yes strong and gnostic atheism I would agree are incompatible with agnosticism. it was not a game for me, but clarity. If a weak atheist can say I do not disbelieve in god then this individual might also be an agnostic. -By some definitions we are atheists. -> [dhw] I have explained that by "arrogant intolerance" I mean an approach that ridicules or threatens other people and their beliefs on the grounds that the speaker is convinced that he knows the truth-So you have defined what "arrogant intolerance" is for you. Can you cite one instance where Dawkins has threatened another person? Because that is what your definition implies.-That Dawkins might go in with both feet and studs showing on religions that promote say female circumscision is far better to me, in my way of thinking, than being an apologist because we can never know the ultimate truth.-I have mentioned before agnosticism is not about being stuck up on some fence thinking we can see further because we understand there is ultimate truth. It is about being in the mud and the dirt.

Part One
 
Dhw: As I see it, many of your questions and comments are a demand for objectivity in a field that can only be subjective.
ROM: Objectivity versus subjectivity is whole other discussion. -I think it's impossible to avoid objectivity versus subjectivity in a discussion on the nature of belief.
 
ROM: The way I see it Dawkins tried to make a behaviourly anchored rating scale to make this less subjective. I still suggest that the 'anchors' Dawkins uses are childish. -The anchor is not behaviour (mentioned only in 2 and 6) but subjective assessment of probability. What other anchor would you expect him to use for what he calls a "spectrum of probabilities"? I would call it an attempt to provide an objective definition of subjective distinctions, and frankly I can't see much difference between his grades of probability and your own use of weak and strong, except that his distinctions are more clearly defined than yours.
 
Dhw: I would place myself in category 4,though at different times I fluctuate very slightly either way.
ROM: So you might move to a five if I were to suggest a literalist interpretation of a six thousand year old Earth? What about a ten minute old Earth?-My rejection of Young Earth Creationism has nothing whatsoever to do with agnosticism. You have ignored my response to your first post, that Dawkins' scheme allows for any type of god(s). Earlier, you told us that Greeks and Romans called Christians atheists. Your own argument would also make our David an atheist because he rejects YEC, Zeus and Christianity, but a theist because he believes in the panentheist god. I repeat, Dawkins' scheme allows for ANY god chosen by the subjective "I". What god(s) do your weak/strong theists/atheists believe/disbelieve in? My own agnosticism concerns any kind of super-intelligence that created the world.
 
Dhw: I don't see how the discussion can be about anything other than the existence of god(s). 
ROM: Speaking personally I don't care about literal gods, I might enter a conversation on the subject because that is the way the prevailing wind is blowing. -My comment was in response to your claim that agnosticism was not just about god, but about the way we handle evidence. However, since you yourself are (I think) an agnostic, may I ask what kind of god you neither believe nor disbelieve in?-dhw: So, what constitutes a moderate, where do you draw the borderlines between moderates and fundamentalists
ROM: These are labels I try not to use. -You didn't try very hard (see later)!
 
ROM: But I do use weak, strong, gnostic as they are philosophically speaking well defined. (I think).-Then please define weak/strong theists/atheists for me. 
Meanwhile, you have taken my question out of its context, which I will repeat for the sake of clarificationhw: As I see it, agnosticism and theism/atheism can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side.
ROM: I disagree dhw ... they can be mutually exclusive for MODERATES who hold on their definitions too tightly as well. A fundamentalist (strong) atheist might be open to having weak atheists and some agnostics fall within the atheist definition.
 
My questions were: "So, what constitutes a moderate, where do you draw the borderlines between moderates and fundamentalists, how tightly is too tightly, who judges what is tight and too tight, how do you define a fundamentalist/strong/weak atheist, how does a fundamentalist define a weak atheist, why "some agnostics", how do you differentiate between agnostic and agnostic, what is "the" atheist definition? There is no end to this game, and communication eventually becomes impossible." I didn't expect an answer ... I was merely pointing out that you had laid yourself open to the same sorts of questions with which you were attacking Dawkins' categories.
 
It might be interesting to know if others find Dawkins' scale useful or not, clear or not, childish or not.