Yes, because the core of their position is the very essence of agnosticism. If you take the position that the truth is knowable, you are gnostic, if you take the position that it is unknowable, you are agnostic. Gnosticism is a very broad category because there are many truths that can be affirmed, but it falls mainly into the two camps of theism and atheism. Agnosticism is a very simple category because only one answer is asserted, that we cannot know for certain this answer. This nonsense about probability is unimportant because one will always fall back to their core position if their ancillary belief is attacked. The reason is that the core position is the only one with significant support and it is from the core position of agnosticism or gnosticism that one develops these ancillary beliefs. Thus, the absolute most important factor here is whether one is going to take the position of agnosticism, theism, or atheism. They are three very distinct and most obviously clear positions. The definition of the words and their usage is set clearly by myself and Dawkins as absolutes (there is no way to imply probability in the words agnosticism, theism, or atheism, as their meanings are indeed very solid). These ancillary beliefs are important maybe for self-identification or some such nonsense, but what defines your beliefs is not what you think is likely, but what you think is certain. In this case the only certainties are that God exists, God does not exist, or that we cannot know whether or not God exists.
