I agree that labels are useful to classify issues, however I think Harv has been overdoing it. It's great to come to a consensus on the meaning of terms, but I got the impression that Harv is trying to argue based solely on the labels instead of trying to settle disagreements. Under Harv's definition of theism, pretty much everyone is a theist, me included. But I hate it when people argue based solely on those labels. If I am a theist according to Harv, so what? My opinions on the issue haven't changed, and I still disagree with him. Actual opinions should be given a higher priority than enlarging or shrinking certain pigeonholes.
Just to avoid any obfuscation (great word) I'll define my definitions here:
Strong Theist: Someone who believes in the God of a dogmatic religion (A non-rational based belief system)
Weak Theist: Someone who believes in a sentient creator (anything less than sentient I don't think would qualify as God; hence, no theism)
Weak Agnostic: Someone who says we can't know whether or not God exists, but believes in some form of divine power, whether sentient or not.
Strong Agnostic: Someone who says we can't know whether or not God exists, but may suspect some form of divine order.
Weak Atheist: Someone with no belief in God.
Strong Atheist: Someone with belief in no God.
My personal opinions fall somewhere in between weak atheism and strong agnosticism: I don't believe in any God, but suspect some form of greater power.