Frankly, your definitions are shit. They fail for the following reasons:

1. Fail to properly define the category (i.e. your explanation makes people who claim to be atheists no longer atheists)
2. It has NOTHING to do with the etymology of the word, which I would be glad to enlighten you on.
3. You're setting up false dichotomies where there are none (hence agnostics being pussies)


You accuse me of similar things, but other than Fuxley, you're shit out of luck with any backup from the philosophical world. All of the last great philosophers used the definition I use, Derrida, Rorty, Davidson, Wittgenstein, the list goes on.
On wikipedia, you will find a section under Atheism regarding strong vs. weak atheists. While I disagree with the terminology, this is the exact same thing YOU'RE talking about! A strong atheist being one who "knows god isn't real" and a weak atheist being on who merely ignores that potential truth. Its the same thing, but once again, other than pussy agnostics, the atheist community is trying to include all non-believers.

Further, you added now spiritualism? Fuck your stupid flow chart, it has no basis in reality. Its highly subjective and I find it, frankly, a stupid simplification and an arbitrary element to divide these groups up. Knowledge? So concerned with knowledge. An Ironist knows there is no ultimate truth in any and all contexts, there is no need to remind one of the lack of ultimate truth in religion because its no specific to religion. That is to say, obviousely, a real ironist has no need to distinguish between "knowing" and "believing" because he too knows those too are false dichotomies.

And look, Rorty speaks for himself, if you think of yourself as smart, read his book, if not, I don't care, its probably too rich for you to comprehend anyways.