Socratic philosophy and method of skepticism

I believe in the philosophy and method of skepticism. I consider my view a moderate version of global skepticism in the I am willing to be skeptical of everything, but than conditional have degrees of certainty. In science my degree of certainty is well grounded, but still skeptical pending on new discoveries and knowledge. In philosophy and theology I hold a higher standard of skepticism, and doubt the certainty of most beliefs. I consider myself an agnostic theist and believe in an apophatic God.

Many challenge my philosophy and say I am committing a fallacy, and cannot both be agnostic and a theism. Can you see a specific fallacy here in this belief?

Many challenge my philosophy and say I am committing a fallacy, and cannot both be agnostic and a theism.

Of course you can. One of the most accepted views of religious belief is a quadrant-based one where people can be agnostic-atheists, gnostic-atheists, agnostic-theists , and gnostic theists . "agnostic" refers to one's proclaimed level of belief being unsure or not very confident, whereas "gnostic" refers to proclaimed certainty. I have a real problem with either of gnostic positions—when referring to the generic god of theism—because the alleged certainty is unsupported and unreasonable (unless talking about a very specific god that is logically incoherent). Being an "agnostic theist" is just fine and not fallacious. It is like saying "I don't have a strong belief one way or the other, but if I would have to pick a side I think there is probably a god".

Agnostic as i understand it is the belief that knowledge about a god is unknowable. Every atheist I've ever talked to says atheism is a "lack of belief concerning god". So i have to wonder how it is consistent to say i believe that knowledge about god is unknowable and i also lack a belief in gods. They just said they believe something about god...i.e. Knowledge of god is unknowable....but they lack a belief....sorry that doesnt seem compatible or consistent.

Atheism and Agnosticism do not have to be compatible nor consistent with one another, as they are different beliefs. It is therefore a logical mistake to place atheists and agnostics in the same 'bucket.' While there are various hybrids, some of which may seem to overlap, Atheism is essentially an assertion of denial of the existence of deities, while Agnosticism reflects the belief that it is impossible to know with certainty whether deity/deities exist, i.e., while not claiming either faith or disbelief. There is no inconsistency here. IMOP, Atheists are on much shakier ground logically since they are affirming an absolute which they are unable to prove (though as with theism, numerous arguments have been posed).

The issue is whether agnosticism as a philosophy is compatible with theism as a belief. Agnosticism may grade into atheism by degrees depending on the strength of ones belief concerning whether God(s) exist or not.

Many agnostics could care less and are indifferent to whether God(s) exist or not. Other agnostics appeal to the evidence and question whether God(s) exist, and believe there is insufficient evidence to decide either way. I am a philosophical skeptic and believe the problem of the evidence, and logical arguments for he existence of God is of course lacking, but remains an open question unanswered philosophically and theologically. I am a Baha'i and believe God exists.