It's my experience that "all people" wouldn't agree on anything.

I think we are all born with an open mind (i.e. unsure about any argument as to how it is that the universe or life itself exists) Its how we are educated and what we choose to beleive that defines us. However, I would agree that we are all agnostic, anyone who claims to be 100% about anything simply lacks a rational mind. That being said I am by many definitions an athiest as well, its just that god is not falsifyable, and therefore cannot be disproven, this is not a good argument for the existence for god, just a reasonable argument to be, if only a little bit, agnostic

I guess i am if you count it as im not dead so i couldnt know, but I have zero doubt there is no god, so i call myself an atheist.

If one starts to question religion from the start or when they finally see the light, that is how it all starts.. agnostic means you are sitting on the fence with the idea that there is a so called god out there and then determining whether or not its real. I started out agnostic for many years.. until I finally made a decision that I don't believe any of the BS theists claim to be true. Blind faith is not in my radar.

semantics. but there are NO gods PERIOD

The word agnostic is for people who are afraid of the word atheist.

I would tend to agree but have to limit the case. Only the psychotic and the borderline among us invest so much so to have absolute beliefs. Most of us are not so guarded or armored in our psyches as to never admit at least to ourselves that there are things that we simply do not know. We are all aware that there are true facts in the world that we don't know have never knew and would not be likely to rectify. We all have our reasons of not acknowledging the importance of most of these things and most of these things can be safely ignored.
However, There are undoubtedly things which we all do and simply must claim to know. Much of this has to do with the construction of our identities and our perceived content of the world in relation to ourselves. Largely the content of this would be subjective and unassailable to external knowledge or counter argument. I could however discover or create some fact and find a means to communicate it to someone, anyone and be able to repeat for them or myself this demonstration of some, now shared piece of knowledge. ie. All those here to some degree think they know that there is utility in discursive, written language, namely English.

So there are certainly things that at least some of us do know and things that most if not all cannot know. Idealist Agnosticism is its own counter argument as it would not claim to knowledge that its claim must be true. ie If I claim that we cannot know anything, how could I defend this alleged knowledge?

No one knows whether or not God exists or not. All 3 have their own separate claims, none of which are proven.

Believers: God Exists.
Atheists: God does not exist.
Agnostics: We will not know one way or the other.

Whichever statement you make, describes which of the 3 you are. All 3 are beliefs.

I think that anyone who consider themselves a scientist CANNOT be considered as anything else but an agnostic. Having an open mind is essential in science, but why would you start an investigation if you knew the answer already?