Well, it is very unfortunate that you are that fast to judge other people, as that prevents useful communication.
When I am talking to you, I want to make sure that I don't misrepresent your position, which is why I try to avoid assumptions about what you mean by words, and instead ask you to define what specifically it is that you mean if I think it's ambiguous, as is good tradition in philosophical debate.
Also, I don't really see how even the possible fact that I don't know a term that you are using should be a reason to not explain your position in a way that I would then understand.
> Then you are agnostic, not atheist. Again, you lack even basic understanding and terminology for the topic we are discussing.
If you prefer that terminology, I don't mind using it that way in our conversation. Definitions of words are ultimately arbitrary (as you presumably are well aware, given that you seem to imply that you are somewhat well-versed in at least the basics of philosophy), so what matters is that we understand what the other means, not whether we are using the objectively correct terminology (which is not a thing anyway).
But regardless of what terminology you prefer, I think it would still be useful for you to be aware of how other people use language. Which is why I am telling you that the position that I described is as a matter of fact the position of the majority of those poeple who label themselves as atheists. You might disagree with them about whether that is what they should label themselves, but that still is what they do label themselves as, and that still is their position. At least as far as the common definitions in that community are concerned, atheism vs. theism is orthogonal to agnosticism vs. gnosticism, all four combinations are possible.
> Anyway, I don't care, you can accept or reject any metaphysical proposition you want, as long as you don't feel all smug and superior for your metaphysical choices or non-choices.
> And as long as you understand that other people's choices deserve the same respect as your choice.
Well, in order to respond to that, I would still need to know what you specifically mean by "metaphysical (entity)".
> I would gladly continue this discussion after you have studied the topic, and at least you have a basic understanding of the philosophical concepts we are using.
Anything specific that you think I lack understanding of?
> Please don't waste mine and your time (as I won't reply) unless you know the definition of "metaphysical entity", "atheism", "agnosticism" and so on.
Please don't waste my time with purely semantic arguments, as you should be well aware that those are vacuous. If you want to use terms differently than I do, that's fine, just explain what you mean and we should be able to communicate.