Agnosticism is for me
There is an unknown power that we do not know nor can we know it.
I believe there is no any god(s) but the power is

Science
With the help of science we can know how things work But we can't know why things works
Science can't find the power source of Univers or you can say god(s)

So please don't connect such things:- power of Univers, science or god(s)

It's okay to share your ideas
It doesn't matter where the idea came from

It's okay

Thank you

@David1955 No, because an atheist's mind is made up.
No room in their narrow minds for speculation on the subject of 'god' and a lot of other related topics.
And don't start with the hair-splitting again. No Agnosticist wants to hear the old tired arguments Agnostics and atheists are somehow 'related' or joined at the hip. They are VERY distinct groups.

@David1955 False.
There has ALWAYS been a division between the two, as if you didn't know.
True: an atheists' mind is made up. An agnostic is not trying to make up his or her mind because there is nothing to decide.
True: an atheist's mind is narrow on the subject. An agnosticist's mind is wide open.
True: an atheist does not speculate about something of which he or she is all but certain. They DO scoff a lot, though!
True: the 'argument' is tired and worn because the 'issues' are in reality non-existent, except in some people's minds. It's beating a dead horse.
I brought this up in the first place to respond as to the true nature of agnosticosm, not to belittle atheists. But it's hard to do so without drawing the sharp contrast between the two 'non-religious groups.'
Actually I'm not religious OR non-religious.
Religion (Theism) is a belief system, as is atheism. Agnosticism, by contrast, is NOT a belief system.
I think reincarnation is real. You'd say that's religious.
I think extraterrestials are real and among us.
I think psychism and the paranormal are real. You might say that's quasi-religious.
Everything to you is false unless PROVEN scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I have no such narrowly-defined strictures. I have OPINIONS based on the best available information, with no need to reflexively reject everything outside a narrow band of absolute certainty.
If you want to interpret that as sowing seeds of division, be my guest.

@David1955 A 'god' which as something to do with a 'collective unconcious' or a 'universal consciousness' or something like that. Certainly not a personal Abrahamic entity.
Btw, not trying to come up with pitch-perfect turns of phrases or be a champion wordsmith.

@David1955 I know you don't; a lot of Agnostics do. That's why I brought all that up, to give examples of things Agnostics speculate about freely, because there are certain REASONS (including circumstantial EVIDENCE, among many other things) which would lead a reasonable person to think such things are possible.
This is not "religion," merely interesting topics for conversation.
There are many atheist "wolves" (if I understand your word correctly) ok n here. Agnostics are gentle people with inquiring minds. After all, there must be Explanations for life's mysteries, other than 'this that, or the other thing' is false.
SOMETHING must be true.
Why don't you expand your thinking and consider non-religious things with more open-mindedness?
It'd do you good.

@David1955 Religionist--a person who manifests devotion to a deity.
Um...no.
Sorry.
You of course are free to believe anything you want. It doesn't MATTER to me what you think, or believe.
I myself don't BELIEVE anything.
If atheism can be described as an 'anti-religion,' then you are most certainly an anti-religionist, right? Such a strong reaction to a belief system is in itself a belief system. In that way, theists and antitheists are two sides of the same coin. Agnostics are outside that cycle of belief and disbelief, or unbelief. I don't care what the formal definitions say, you both disbelieve and 'unbelieve.'
I TOLD you what my definition of 'god' might be--it's very vague because I don't think the word can be defined, since we have no idea what we are defining, if anything.
But I DO think there may be something worth defining. I've tried to come up with another word or phrase for it but there doesn't seem to be one.
Look, you are a typical reactionary atheist, okay? There's nothing WRONG with that, except for your need to attack anyone who doesn't disbelieve with as much vehement vociferousness as yourself.
That's your business. But don't pretend to be superior to me in the 'purity' and absolute simplistic-ness of your pseudo-convictions.
You KNOW nothing, yet pretend to know the truthfulness and falsity of everything worth knowing about.
I just happen to disagree with that assessment.