Pantheistic Hedonist or Existential Zen Buddhist, on alternate days.
Whether there is or is not an invisible man in the sky who controls my thoughts, feelings and actions, is not important to me. The importance attributed to this incredibly overspecific piece of theistic guesswork amazes me.
My dictionary’s got a slightly different definitition, one that allows me to call myself an agnostic:
a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenemena. (Webster’s New World Dictionary)
This is a definition that a few Christians who actually understand their religion acknowledge. Instead of getting up in arms and thumping their Bibles shouting, “I know because it says right here in the Bible,” they’ve acknowledged that it is impossible to know. Instead what they do is have faith and believe.
Is the term ‘agnostic’ squishy? I always thought the term ‘agnostic’ meant someone who believed in there being ‘more’ to life than what science or human reason could ever show, and in fact that ‘more’ being attributed to a higher presence/God/creator, but that it was simply something that we could never prove or show to complete satisfaction. Your definition of the above is a weaker version of that, essentially just the latter half of mine. Discuss?
Hindu, but only moderately devout.
Which is to say that I believe in all the basic principals but don’t fast and chant that much. Hunger is an overrated form of devotion and seeing as I’ve lived in N.A. most of my life, Hindu slokas from my mouth sound silly.
I call myself agnostic. By that I mean that people cannot know what properties a divine being might posess, if any exist. I tend to to think that none exists, but that’s only because the evidence I’ve seen points that way.
However, I doubt that I’ve even seen .1% of the available evidence, so I’m probably not a very good judge. I can’t imagine a human being who is, though.
Right - I’ve heard that definition before. I guess I just always thought that that definition - above - defined a scientific agnostic point of view, sort of like completely waiting for proof before making ANY decision.
My real question is what you call people like me. I DO believe (quite firmly) that there is a higher power/creator/whathaveyou, but I just also know that this is not something that I could (or need to) prove to anyone. This is something that is taken on faith, but it is also understood that no one could ever show/prove to another that my faith was grounded in anything more than just a hunch. Is this the difference between ‘scientific-based’ and ‘faith-based’ agnosticism?
Raised Lutheran, currently pagan, with occasional forays into Buddhism.
I am a Zen agnostic -
It all comes down to, "what the meaning of ‘is’ is?
Hear, hear!!! I don’t believe everything the Bible says, specifically Genesis (I mean, come on! Make a universe in 6 days, flood a planet, build a tower to heaven. Spielberg isn’t that good!) Most of it is allegorical and symbolic. Some portions are entertaining and some are boring. Some portions are historical (the Exodus, events at the time of JCs birth, etc.).
I have faith in something creating it all, akin to Mulder’s poster on the X-Files - “I want to believe.” The truth is out there. Whether your god is Reason or Ra, everyone believes in something.
I believe I’ll have another drink. 
Reform Jewish/agnostic.
I participate in religious rituals because they give me comfort and community, and I think they help me be a better person, but I haven’t been able to overcome my atheist upbringing and convince myself that it’s actually all true.
In a miracle of self-reliance, I solved my own question. Hold your applause until the end, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
That’s me! Now I just need to find our church somewhere…
Conservative Jewish, but borrow some ideas from Eastern religions. Converted to Judaism in 2003.
Why would you believe some of the magic, but not all of it?
LSD. No, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I dropped acid and spoke with God 
A bit more seriously: I’m theistic by choice (the choice to utilize the word “God” to describe my experiences and understandings — I could, and sometimes do, dispense with it — but I genuinely do think that the term, and a few zillion others used in other languages/cultures, had its/their origin in similar experiences & understandings, making it the right word for the concept).
Put me down as roll yer own, or western unorthodox or some such thing.
Perhaps you belong to my church?
Care to make a contribution?
While I think this statement is a cheap shot, before someone starts asking for a cite I thought I’d provide one (here). That doesn’t mean that to be a good scientist you have to be atheist, it just happens that a lot of the top scientists are (I’ve known some very good religious scientists).
No can do. I’m not agnostic. Quite the opposite. Were it not for the lack of any meaningful overlap with the traditional content embraced by the historical gnostics, I’d say I was a gnostic.
Within the limitations of my ability as a person to know anything with absolute certainty, I am one who knows, not one who believes despite not knowing (a description I always thought rather apt for the traditional believers, but I don’t think they’d appreciate being called “agnostics”)
Okay, check. You know, and do not believe.
Contributions also gratefully accepted by outsiders…