Thanks for the comments guys. Very interesting how some people think, and some interesting interpretations. I was wondering myself whether I was an agnostic or an athiest. The only rationalisation I can make is that I am somewhere inbetween, but obviously lean far more towards athiesm.

I see no evidence for the existence of anything fitting the common definition of 'a god', and furthermore, I see no need. I'm not anti-theist, I dislike the baggage associated with the term 'atheist', and prefer humanist, secularist, skeptic, and freethinker.

I argue that atheists are agnostic and agnostics are atheists. Atheists cannot "know" that there is no creator god that is in, or is, the universe. We can only say we do not believe there is one (or more) and state our reason for not believing--which, typically, is a lack of evidence for one. And, since agnostics do not actively believe there is a god, they are also without that belief. I suppose some might think it is just as possible that there is one as it is that there is not one--but, they still do not actively believe that one does exist. If they did, they would be a believer of some sort.

I believe the nature of ultimate reality is unkown and unknowable.
Gods or a god is but one possibility of that nature.

I would call myself a spiritual atheist.

I do not subscribe to the belief that there is a divine creator, but I think there is a je ne sais quoi (an I don't know what) that all living beings are capable of sharing. The closest I have been able to label it is empathy. So I do believe in a soul, whether it's in the mind or heart, I do not attempt to distinguish.

I am an atheist, an evidentialist, and a rationalist. Now, let's drive the nail home. First, an agnostic is an atheist with reservation. The word 'atheist' is all inclusive, just a bit more certain. An atheist who says, "There is no god," has placed him/herself in the same position as the person who says, "There is a god." This is an important distinction.

I am an atheist, but I will not make the statement that there is no god. Not because I lack spine, but because I'm endowed with a functioning brain. My certainty that there is no god or anything supernatural is 99.9999999...9% Why stop there? Simply because we don't know everything there is to know about everything, and anyone who rounds it up to 100% has, in my estimation, stepped into dangerous territory and can legitimately be considered just as arrogant as believers in a personal god.

One of the more important things we learn in science is to not be so cock sure of anything.

I choose not to label my subjective ''Godly'' experiences as fact or fiction. Although i have my own experiences which i can openly talk about, I'm aware this is an illusion of some kind.
So i refuse to impose my beliefs based upon my experiences onto another when we all have different angles and perspectives. No Godly experience is subjectively the same.
so i say i am an agnostic out of caution, humbleness, and awareness.

I'm an atheist.

I don’t identify as atheist, agnostic or believer. Do you believe in X?

I'm 99.9% sure there is no God.

1% of uncertainty is due to lack of confidence & proof. What type of agnostic that is, I'm not sure?

What I like, is being a free thinker & having discussions with others who are too.

Cool question... I am an agnostic because I didn't surrender myself to be completely negetive about there being a god somewhere out there. Hell ... what do i know anyway. Its just a feeling with nothing to back it up. I'm on the other side of the 50 50 opinion. What confuses me is the vast nothingness that the big bang took place. What put that there? Why did it happen. How did anybody come from molten lava. What caused living organisms to evolve from the poison seas . I'm an unsure agnostic. 1% there could be a god.

I guess I came to my conclusion rationally-can't prove existence of a god.to me. Too many religious wars.

I used to be "temporary agnostic" then I went to "foreseeable future" agnostic finally I just went full atheist.

Written text is very flawed did not think that there was a defining agenda. I use agnostic as I understand it t is a less abrasive word. The original definition of atheism pertains to anyone that is not christian. Agnostic to me better defines doubt, doubt of written text doubt of a magical creature that controls every given thing, doubt of the proclaimed demigod. Rejecting control by religious factions. The positive is to inspire free thinking.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of the famed Spaghetti Monster, either. So if you choose to believe in the Spaghetti Monster because no one can disprove its existence, it is no different than "god". Just substitute the word "God" for anything imaginary. Same outcome.

There is no proof either way. I will not believe in a fantasy so therefore I am agnostic-atheist.

Whether you believe in something or not, does not make it 'exist or not exist' it is just your opinion. That is what I believe.

Definitely not temporary... I think most who have been pulled through the knothole of religion would be the same. Some define atheism as knowing there is no God, but some argue that is a logical fallacy, so many say they are 99.9% atheist... To me that has elements of agnosticism in it.

So, to some people I'll claim to be an atheist. To others. an agnostic. Like I just said in another post, it's all shades of grey, which Richard Dawkin's scale helps demonstrate.