"Atheist" addresses belief, while "Agnostic" addresses knowledge. If you are without belief, you're A-theist, and if you are without knowledge you are A-gnostic.

@ldheinz

That still doesn't answer my question pertaining to this chart. Where do I fit on that?

The burden of proof works both ways.

@Ellatynemouth there is no burden of proof when you are the person that is unconvinced by a statement such as "a god exists." Only if the person says "no gods exist" or "a god exists" would have a burden of proof. In this case the person would have asserted the existence of something without providing any evidence, therefore their statement can be dismissed as there is no point in proving the non-existence of something that has not been proven to exist.

@AustinSkepticus

That's just word play sophistry. To be certain that something does not exist is equal to the opposite assertion.

My issue is with people who say "there is no god".

That's because you use definitions differently. Gnostic relates to knowledge, theist relates to belief. Different parts of the same question. What you know and what you believe are different things.
What do you believe? Do you believe the claims of theists that a god exists? If you don't believe their claims, you are an atheist. That doesn't mean you believe that no god exists. Gnosticism relates to knowledge - if you know that god/s does or doesn't exist, then you are a gnostic theist or atheist. If tou don't knoe that a god could or couldn't exist, then you are an agnostic theist/atheist.

Semantics is all about word meanings. It's an important subject. If your meanings are well-defined, it leads to a lot of miscommunication and more time spent on clarification or unnecessary arguments. Just sayin'...?

I meamnt to write, "...NOT well defined..."

@Flyingsaucesir Doesn't matter. There will still be those who refuse to accept the actual meanings of words.

Also curious where you place yourself on this scale: agnostic atheist, or agnostic theist? Or is there a third/moderate option?

@TheMiddleWay depends on how you view evidence. If there is no evidence of a crime, no-matter someone's claim, then no crime is in existence. If there is no evidence of a god, no-matter someone's claim, then no god is in existence.
The more precise the claim the easier it is to dismiss when the evidence you would expect is not present. Absence of evidence to a claim is evidence the claim is false.
But... evidence may yet be forthcoming. The case is closed however until the presentation of new evidence.
So I am an Agnostic Atheist because I have an absence of belief that this crime/god exists but I can't dismiss it absolutely. However at this point I am no longer investigating.
For clarity I have to acknowledge that this crime/god may exist but I am following the evidence, or lack of and acting according.

@TheMiddleWay im not too up on philosophy. But I think it is reasonable to dismiss a murder claim where there is no evidence of it having happened.
No body, blood stain, weapon, missing person report etc. Seriously! Im not agnostic about this im saying show me the evidence.
As for prayer. Good example. Surely you've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well. No evidence of god at present makes it safe to dismiss these extraordinary claims. Doesn't mean evidence won't turn up later, but at this point I think it unlikely.
As for bias, I'm claiming I don't know for certain. I'm stating that clearly. I don't know. So I'm agnostic. However I have to act as though one of two positions are correct. In this case the evidence says no god. So I'm also Atheist. Being atheist isn't a belief, it's the absence of belief. I am capable of not believing in something but not knowing for certain. Evidence helps direct my thinking, but experience and knowledge keep me grounded in the fact that no matter my skills at investigating I can still be wrong. Knowing you can be wrong doesn't give you belief in god or allow you to dismiss god as stupidity. Not entirely.
When asked to identify religious affiliation I state Atheist. But I am still agnostic as well.
As for string theory, what you know and understand shapes your beliefs. Simply using the scientific method will help you to contributing to proving string theory or move away from your belief that string theory is true. Your may be unable to overcome your bias that the evidence goes against your beliefs, but because of the scientific method others can overcome it for you. That's why science progresses even if individuals dont. Belief in your work can drive you to succeed. In science failure is still success.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist, as I see no evidence for any god, therefore I have no belief in any god, subject to reevaluation if any evidence shows up.

Also, I see an anti-theist as someone who believes that religion is harmful and therefore should go away for the betterment of humanity. How that happens is yet another question.

@TheMiddleWay with this theoretical murder, I agree with you. Not guilty. There is not enough evidence of a crime to sentence someone.

Being an Atheist isn't saying I have evidence of no gods it's saying the evidence for gods you are providing is insufficient for me to believe your outlandish claims. I'm not making a claim at all.

These 2 positions are essentially the same but on 2 different claims. I don't have to know the answer absolutely to dismiss them.

I did once act as though god was real. At some point, despite my thoughts and actions, the outcome slowly convinced me that god wasn't real. I don't feel the need to randomly act religious at times to test that. I've done that phase already.

Humanity is flawed. Nothing we touch will ever be perfect despite our best intentions. Maybe I misunderstand the scientific method but from the perspective of this non-scientist, we have still progressed and continue to progress. There have been and will continue to be missteps along the way though.