With all due respect to Dawkins, his chart is too simplistic. It needs to be a ven diagram. There is overlap between atheism and agnosticism for the very simple reason that they ask slightly different questions. Therefore you can be both or neither or either one. Atheist=one who does not believe in god(s). Hey, that's me!!
Agnostic=one who does not know whether any sort of deity actually exists(and realizes it is ultimately unknowable). Wait a sec, that's me too! Oh no!

Both terms have varying definitions, and no one, even the supremely self-important, has the authority to declare their own favored definition as the exclusively correct definition.

It is easy enough and comfortable for me to declare myself an atheist. I am that. But the agnostic label, if labels are brought up at all in conversation, allows for much more thought-provoking discussion with anyone who is questioning and working through the religious doctrines into which they were indoctrinated.

None of us knows all. For people to be able to question religion enough to overcome fear of awful punishment if they are wrong, they need to realize they have permission to be wrong. Agnosticism acknowledges and shows respect for that.

Unequivocal 7.

Pascal's Wager statistically supports me on this one (once you start adding all the different BS [belief systems] into the matrix).

This is such fun.

Number 4 sounds a lot like Schrödinger's dog.

No offense, but you sound like the vegan, who also eats eggs and and hotdogs. Stop pondering where you are in this spectrum and the angst will go away…

I believe that I am but a speck of carbon on a dying planet! I also believe when looking into the cosmos that there are beings who would look at our idea of a god as being a speck of carbon! What number does that make me?

Why is this so important? We are who we are.

i am more toward 7 than 6.

This is a belief scale.
Agnosticism is out of this scale.
Agnosticism preaches that
"doesn't matter what I believe or not, something that can't be demonstrated is virtually the same as something that does not exist, so why bother?"

Se, and agnostic can even believe in god and act as if some god exists, but the person will never push it on others or go against science for example as "Beliefs don't matter".

Or another way of putting it, an agnostic refuses to believe, it is not doubt, it is to be sure that one can come with infinite concepts that can't be demonstrated, and refusing to have an opinion on that because virtually they are all equivalent and equivalent to non existence.

So an Agnostic "believes" that existence and non existence are the same, not that the possibilities of existence and no existence re the same.

It is fun to make a scale and say I am more atheist than you, but the scale brings the pre-conception that you will act according to your beliefs.

Agnosticism is not about what you believe, is about what you know, and sometimes not knowing does not mean doubt, it means that the concept is useless because it is built in a way that is impossible to test and know.

It is my opinion that these nomenclatures are singularly unhelpful …and I had hoped we’d left behind the tiresome endless arguments about our degrees of difference when certain parties either left the site or were expelled some months ago. I know that you are a new member here - relatively speaking, so weren’t to know, but personally I find it quite tedious and exhausting to engage in the endless ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ arguments and prefer to promote and accentuate what we have in common here: which of course is - a distinctly sceptical view or disbelief in any and all gods, belief systems, or religions.

I don't use labels or scales to define bullshit, I just don't believe in bullshit. All deities that you can name or not name were all created by the ignorance of humans to explain the vast majority of things of nature they didn't understand back then. As knowledge grew the easy ones were dropped like Zeus, Odin, Thor you name them, once venerated now just myth. All gods, again, 100% of gods were created by us men. Ergo all man made, ergo not deities. Can't be easier than that to pass the smell test of bullshit.

Wishy washy is what many would call you. All gods were created by humans. All of them. You name it, man made. Deities are all false, man made ergo bullshit.

I take the stances of De-Facto Atheist and
either Strong Agnostic or Apathetic Agnostic.
Since human perceptions are both subjective and objective, how can anyone prove 100% that God either does or does not exist?

Interesting how Richard Dawkins gives us the best biological understanding for Jesus of biblical text. A meme organism that evolved into a person. And atheist still say meme organism doesn't exist, but yet an atheist gives the best modern biological explination.

I don't agree with the concept of this scale; agnosticism and atheism are different issues.
I believe that 6 is the closest to a scientific understanding. The claim that God is very improbable may be tempered by arguments for fine tuning; the multiverse is imaginative and fun, but has as much evidence as God (none).

Point 4 is a strong and improper claim, that a god's existence or non-existence are equally probable. Aside from the fine tuning, absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence (not proof, but evidence). A pure agnostic would say they don't and probably cannot know. Maybe from a statistical or Bayesian point of view, that means they are equally probable, but what we see does provide arguments for and against.

According to that list I'm 4 5 6 and 7

Guess I'm both a 4 &5.

You are an agnostic. Not an atheist. If you entertain the possiblity of a deity, you are an agnostic with possible theist leanings. #4. I'm a #7.