Interdasting, I usually characterize myself the same way.
Works for me. “Choose the answer that best suits…”
Casual jerks, or devout jerks? And how do you know jerkdom even exists? That’s just an ontological category with no metaphysical existence.
Cite? Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
PS - 
I’m an atheist, but voted for “Disinterested in the subject.” I’ve been an atheist for 55 years, and am tired of debating the subject. If I need a label, I’m a “shrugnostic.”
When people ask and I don’t want to be offensive, I put down “Apostate”. Most Christians have no idea what that means, and think it is it some kind of Apostle sect.
I am a member of no organized religion. I’m an Episcopalian. (apologies to Will Rogers)
My problem with organized religion is not the religion part but the organized part. The dogmatic teachings that are part and parcel of organization do not tolerate ambiguity or applying a moral belief system to an ever-changing world.
I voted for “casual theist”, since it’s closest to what I usually describe myself as: a vague theist. In that, I believe there’s a god, but I don’t really follow any specific religion. (I was raised Catholic, and sometimes I tend to observe certain habits, though, like crossing myself if I’m at someone’s house if they say grace, for example)
(I hate the phrase “spiritual, but not religious”, if only because it’s so overused)
I go to church with a guy who describes himself as “religious, but not spiritual,” mainly to get a rise out of people.
Hey, “spiritual, but not religious” is what I picked. Now no one will sit with me at lunch. 
I thought about “casual theist,” but as I make my way back to having some sort of faith in my life, I’m trying to not be just “casual” about it. And the former seemed closer to where I’ll always be, since I’ll never let any one dogma dictate my behavior. I can certainly screw that up all on my own, I don’t need a codified belief system to do it for me.
I voted “strong atheist” since I can bench press more than my body weight.
But did you believe you could, before you saw that you could?
I dispute your distinction between “casual” and “strong” atheist, so I can’t really vote. It’s possible to have pretty strong (that is, well-reasoned) opinion on something and be casual about the subject.
Essentially, the phrase ‘Strong Atheist’ seems to be used by people who are unclear on the concept, and think atheism is a religion in the same way Catholicism is a religion; that is, they think Dawkins, for example, is operating from the same kind of foundation in blind faith as the Pope, for example.
So. I think that religion is a hypothesis in that it’s a competing explanation for how the world works, and I think that the religious people have failed to make their case: Their arguments devolve into Because I Said So and their experiments have all been falsified. It’s pretty much the same as the four humors as the explanation for illness, except humoral theory doesn’t presume to say some people are just born evil and need to be punished for it.
That said, I’m pretty casual about it and it doesn’t come up much in my life.
Agnostic. I’m Libran and apparently we’re indecisive.
I picked “pantheist”, because at the moment, I’m just ever so slightly on the “why not” side of my agnostic teeter-totter. But it varies. Ask me tomorrow, and I’ll probably have a different answer.
(Yes, I’m an ordained minister and priestess in my Pagan community. Doesn’t mean I know a thing for sure…)
I’m a Sagittarius, and we’re often confidently sure of three contradictory ideas at once. 
I’d like to point out that, in my experience (I’m 65) “spiritual, not religious” MEANS “Strongly Atheistic”.
Just so you know how to split my “Spiritual” vote.
And yes, there is no Strong vs Casual to Atheism - you are or are not.
That people are conflating religion/spirituality with Astrology speaks volumes as to the state of Organized Religion in this community. It Ain’t.
Thank gawd.
Yeah, well, you’d be wrong, but you’d have a lot of company. Most folks seem to think “agnostic” means “I don’t know”, but I think the Google definition is far more accurate historically:
“A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.”
That first part is a pretty strong epistemological statement, with which I agree. The latter part is closer to the more common interpretation, which completely disregards the history of the word.
Likewise, there are two popular definitions of “atheist”:
- a person who doesn’t believe in God or gods
- a person who believes there is no God or gods
It’s a pretty big distinction. Most folks here who call themselves atheists use definition #1, but most people who are not atheists seem to think it means #2. Neither is well-characterized by “casual” or “strong” as you’ve defined them.
Bingo.
I’m a bit agnostic in both senses of the word. While from a purely philosophical approach, I accept the argument that there’s really no evidence that could convince me that couldn’t be faked by “someone” with sufficient technology. Regardless, I suspect that if there were a God who was sending us a clear message, I’d accept it. I’d admit that I can’t know God is real, just as I can’t know that anything is real, but I’d believe it (just as I believe that there is an objective reality.)
I’m not absolutely certain of any of my beliefs, other than that I can’t doubt my own existence without contradicting myself, and other rather phenomenological truths (like “I feel hungry!” – this is an indisputable fact, though it’s not where most phenomonologists try to take it as they charge madly off the rails.)
If asked “Do I believe there’s a God?” my answer is “no”. Am I sure? Oh heck no, but first define God in some way where we can rationally discuss it (which rarely leads to any serious definitions.) Regardless, I’ve been dead wrong about far simpler things, so I don’t take myself too seriously. In any case, I can’t imagine actually worshiping a deity that would condemn any being to eternal torment for any reason. I have a hard time respecting anyone who would, other than as a craven attempt to save their own souls from this monster. (I’d respect anyone who admitted that! Frankly, if I thought that was the way things stood, I’d certainly try – but probably fail – to worship.)
So, what’s my category? I’m picking Agnostic, which is what I call myself, but which most people misinterpret.
Frankly, I prefer polls with reasonable definitions of categories. Even then, Godel’s incompleteness theorem proves that no categorization is complete, even if one of the categories is “none of the above”. So I guess I shouldn’t too harshly criticize someone someone for failing to achieve the impossible. 
oops
I’m somewhere between casual and strong atheist. I am also agnostic.
That is what agnostic means.
Shoulda had Born Again Pagan. for one choice.