There is no god or supreme being or intelligent design. We are here because of a chance of the roll of the
evolutionary dice roll

Atheism is just simply a lack of beliefs in god(s). It is not a positive claim that there is no god. There are atheists that do make that claim, but that is solely up to that individual. Agnosticism addresses knowledge and atheism addresses belief, and they are not mutually exclusive. You can say that you do not know whether a god exists (agnostic), but you have found no reason to believe one does exist(atheism).

I would even go as far as to say that all "agnostics" are atheists because they lack belief. They just don't take up the mantle of atheism because of stigma and/or misunderstanding. Even religious people are atheists when it come to every other god they do not believe in.

There simply is no verifiable evidence, facts or data to even suggest that any deities exist much less proof.

I find labels are incredibly dependent on your definition of the label.
I use atheist because I have no belief in any gods. I feel it’s very unlikely that there will ever be reliable evidence of a god, however should that evidence arrive I would be willing to accept the evidence.
However, your definition of a god plays a role as well,

*You have formed your opinion or view of "God" based on religion. Because religion tells you that "God" cares and answers prayers and all of that other nonsense. I don't believe that there was a creator - but what if there were and it just didn't care? That would certainly mirror many species of life on earth that give birth and get the heck out of dodge when it's over. They don't hang around to hear their offspring cry out from pain because they're being eaten by a Pelican or something. If you don't want to believe in "God" as a creator or any divine being for that matter - awesome. But if the reason you don't believe in "God" is because of how it was defined by religion leaves you feeling disappointed - religion still has a hold on you."

I agree with the couple others who said just be both. There’s no reason to pick one. Everyone is without absolute knowledge, so everyone is agnostic if they’re being honest with themselves. And anyone who doesn’t have a form of theism is also atheist in the simplest most literal of terms. Agnostic describes what you know and atheist describes what you believe. Being an agnostic atheist is the baseline of the most reasonable position I can imagine so far, so that’s what I call myself. I prefer to emphasize the atheist part if I have to pick a label rather than explain those subtleties to a believer, because agnostic gives them the impression that you haven’t made up your mind decisively yet, but that’s definitely not what it means to me.

Just be both.

I prefer to define myself as an Agnostic . . . . for one thing, I do not want to be like the christians who claim to know something that is unprovable. Some Atheists are just as bad.
.
Thomas Henry Huxley said it best, and he also was the person who coined the term "Agnostic" :
.
"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis" . . . had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant." Thomas Henry Huxley
.
Thomas Henry Huxley, was known as "Darwin's Bulldog", for his defense of Darwin's theories in debate. He was often known, in the course of his many debates, to quietly state that he knew nothing about the supernatural which his opponents claimed to have firm belief in . . . . . then, somewhat louder, add . . . "And neither do you."
.
While I am willing to argue against the existance of a supreme being, especially any that has such a fucked up character as that of the christian god, or some of the others, I do not have a problem with some of the images of "god" as defined by the Ancient Greeks, for in that case and under their definition, a mortal man could become a god, and, I find no proof of an absence of a "Force", somewhat akin to the Star Wars kind, but not anywhere near as prominent or personal, the mystery of the universe you might call it, and as all of us who have studied physics are well aware, the universe is not as cut and dried as many arrogant know-it-alls think it is.
.
I think that what makes a person wise is not what they claim to know, but how much they realize they do not know.

Don't merely 'lean' towards the Truth, instead run like the wind and embrace it then, like all Atheists, you WILL be much happier, freer, wiser and far more contented.

If you don’t believe in a god then you are atheist. Atheist does not necessarily mean you have to have a belief in no gods.

potatoe potahto.

Yup

At age 13, I became an atheist.

I chose rational thought over magical beliefs.

Congrats!

I'm both. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, as I have no knowledge of god and therefore lack a belief in god.

I'm of the belief that if one is "agnostic" which to me means you don't believe it is knowable whether there is any god/s or not, then you are automatically "atheist" which to me means you don't believe in any god/s.

There is surely a fuzzy area, when one simply doesn't fully believe there is or isn't a god, so the term "agnostic" is good, until one feels confident in claiming NO true belief in any god/s. Then either "agnostic" or "atheist" will do.

A problem with labeling oneself "agnostic" means you can set yourself up for prostyletizers to try to convince you toward believing. Sometimes it takes that experience to push you over the edge toward total disbelief!

For many, it's a journey and it takes a while during de-conversion to get comfortable with the various labels, agnostic, humanist, atheist, free-thinker, skeptic, etc. Only you know what label fits for you to share with others.

People for the most part are taught to be selfish they use control devices to get what they want political agendas, belief in deities and demigods, momey, structured education, all brainwashing techniques to control.

There is no definite proof either way. There never has been. This goes for all of the gods.

I found it interesting that just today friend and I were talking religion and he says "but you know which god I am talking about." How does his claim for a biblical god mean anything?

I'm an atheist regardless of the world situation. I just look to hard scientific evidence or the lack of it for my beliefs. Now, UFOs are a real possibility. Ha ha!

Ummmm, "definite proof", either way, don't hold your breath. You could however try simple observation......

My hatred for religious fanatics and Evangelical/ fundamentalists run extremely deep. If people keep their religions to themselves, like they should, typically I don't have an issue with it.

Yep

Congrats!

Congrats