You are mixing up belief with knowledge. That's what theists do, try to avoid it. I'm an atheist not agnostic because I am 100% sure that god does not exist. If I had to back up this claim with evidence I would not be able to. In every other walk of life the burden of proof lies on the claimant but for some reason in religion people disregard this. Occam's Razer explains pretty simply how unexplainable possibilities do not create equal probabilities. Things do not exist because I can't prove they do not, and they do not get the luxury of potentially existing in my mind just because I don't have proof to the contrary. I could make endless claims as there are an infinite number of things that are not deniable but also not true. For instance, Spiderman lives at the center of Neptune in a small cave. Prove me wrong, if you can't you must admit that since you cannot that it must be possible and therefore, religion. I know it's complete bullshit but you can't deny it so you must accept its potential.

Agnosticism is honestly IMO, the result of a weak mind which cannot accept that truth exists regardless of their own knowledge. I know that the absurdity of religion has not been realized by everyone to be just as fucking stupid as Spiderman living in Neptune. It's not possible and it is not true, regardless of proof one way or the other.

Theists make up answers to questions that humanity does not yet have an answer.
Atheists are sure those answers are made up.
Agnostics aren't sure....

You're assumption is based on a misconception in my opinion. When it comes to theism vs. Atheism, the absence of evidencesupporting each side is not equal. The existence of god(s) would be conclusively and irrefutably proven with one single concrete clue or sign. On the other hand there's no possible way to prove the nonexistence of anything.

The same is true of any mythical creature. There is no evidence that unicorns exist, but neither is there evidence that they don't. Are you agnostic about their existence? What about werewolves? Vampires?

By the simple laws of logic: If everyone is correct in their beliefs, then no one is. One can only be correct for themselves.

When I believed in God I did so on based on faith. Now, as an Atheist I realize that faith is not something to be proud of, it cannot be a guide to truth because anyone can believe in anything based of faith. And it is even dangerous, because faith allows you to disregard evidence against your belief because you, yourself believe it to be true, even though you hold zero actual evidence for you position. For instance, if you mention that most religion is geographical. If you are born in the West your more likely to become a Christian, if you're born in the East your more likely to become a Muslim. They can easily toss that idea out because it disagrees with their previously held belief. Contrast that with the belief in weather, a hurricane in the west is a typhoon in the east. They have different names but science agrees they are the same thing by a different name.

And the believer "Knows" how? Evidence of any kind other than their inner needs? Whereas the non-believer can point to a million things, literally, than prove there is no beneficent presence...things like child abuse, starvation, violence and slaughter of the innocent, et etc etc

I disagree. There is considerable evidence that there is no magic man in the sky making things happen. Over centuries, many of the things that used to be thought of as God's work have been proven to be something else.

I think a person who says that such a man exists shoulders the burden of proof. I think being an atheist means that you are certain no such proof exists. You shouldn't have to disprove their assertion.

The core mental processes in both theism and atheism are the same, it is being certain about something which there is no certainty about, either way ----it is claiming to know the unknowable.

A soft agnostic thinks it may be possible to know, that for example science may eventually settle the issue, whereas a hard agnostic like myself thinks this is at least highly unlikely. As the gaps which 'the god of the gaps' filled in (for some people) new gaps open up, probably endlessly.

Hence for some decades the begining of our universe has been the BigBang, but maybe not because a stage known as Inflation is required for BigBand to occur according to recent astrophics; and maybe we will find a stage before iInflation such as an emergence of proto multiverse(s) from a Black Hole, and so on. Or maybe there is no begining and our universe, the multiverses, the omniverse have always existed though forever changing.

Significantly the religions of the Middle East / Europe / USA are hooked on the idea of a First Cause Creator God, while those of the Far East mainly offer the idea of an eternal endlessly cycling Cosmos. Take your pick ----or withold claiming to know the unknowable.

Whoa Nelly. Stop with all that logical thinking there.

Wat

A person who claims to know God exists/does not exist isn't necessarily right. You don't have to actually BE right to think you KNOW you're right.

Because people are often unsettled by lack of certainty? We cannot be certain about a great many things other than how we personally feel on an individual level. I'm ok with not knowing for sure. I'd love to know, certainly, but I can't claim I know either way because we don't have solid, undisputed ways yet to test one way or another. We have hints and clues that are inconclusive either way. We simply just don't. I know I personally wobble between feeling there is something even if I can't subscribe to the biblical version of what that is, and seeing enough evidence that can be explained a number of ways, mostly against intelligent design anyway. I fall into agnostic because I have a hard time with the idea there isn't anything at all. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as religious organizations tend to like to insist and demand.

The atheists don’t have to have proof they are not the one making the claim. The people making the claim are the ones that have to provide the proof. The atheist is just rejecting the claim for lack of proof. Just like if I came up to you and said I have a invisible flying pink unicorn. And you had to have faith in order to see it or touch. You would think I lost my mind. You don’t have to prove me wrong. I’m wrong by default for not being able to prove my claim. Now say I convince millions of people that I had said unicorn and they claim their faith allows them to be able see and touch it. Is that now proof of my unicorn. Of course not. There is no tangible testable proof of the unicorn. The default is still there is no unicorn. Just because many people make the same claim doesn’t make the claim legitimate.

Well, exactly. I happen to believe in God, but I don’t for a minute try to show anyone proof in God. Which by your definition makes me an agnostic believer. The good news for me is that my faith in God doesn’t require proof of the existence of God, it just is.

I think you would like the post I just created addressing this very topic.

I don't have doubts in that area.