My "Locked Door Argument for Self-Described Agnostics" Who Don't Want to Call Themselves Atheists...

Since so many debates have well-worn terrain with established/cliche' arguments, like opening moves in a chess game, it's worthwhile to establish the basic permutations of debate in order to quickly speed through them. In so doing you can more efficiently get to the "more productive" aspects of the debate (in the virgin terrain). So I reiterate my recommendation that every debate have a "Debate Map" like a visually engaging, more-complex version of a FAQs. (as of October 9th, 2009 - the folks at http://debatemaps.com have a less-than-ideal implementation of what I have in mind). I seek to respond to RationalResponders' claim ( http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist ) that those of us self-proclaimed agnostics are actually, by their semantic technical parsing, atheists because, according to their reasoning, one can only believe in god or not believe in god (it is thus necessarily a binary proposition). And they claim that such a line of reasoning requires most self-identified agnostics to properly define themselves as atheists. I think their reasoning may indeed be correct but because it is incomplete their conclusions don't necessarily follow. Here's my first attempt to add to their productive debate... "Have you ever heard of my "Locked Door Argument for Self-Described Agnostics" (or something functionally similar)? Accept that someone can be sure he locked his door when he left his home only to return and realize he was wrong. Consequently, knowing his own human fallibility, on subsequent occasions such a person can still be quite sure he locked his door but still allow for the possibility that he is wrong. Thus, a comparable situation exists with some self-described agnostics. While they are right that someone can only either believe or disbelieve they must recognize that someone can both be on one side of belief and yet acknowledge that he could be wrong. That humility and overt recognition of fallibility is what prevents most self-described agnostics from embracing the atheist designation." So have you read some version of that argument before? If so, where?