It took awhile before I became comfortable saying I am an atheist. I think it is mostly due to all the negative things I was taught about atheists: atheists are immoral; atheists are full of self hatred; atheists want to destroy America...etc. On my journey from believer to atheist I, like many, maybe most, settled into deism and from there moved to thinking I was an agnostic-- thinking maybe there is a god of some sort, maybe there isn't. But, the more science I learned, the more I realized that I really do not believe that there is a god of any kind in the universe, or that is the universe. In time I knew I was basically an atheist, but saying it out loud was still difficult; but, I did reach that point. Like most atheists, I do identify as an agnostic atheist--only in that I accept that I cannot know 100% that there is no being that we would call a god. And, yes, I agree, we need to define what being an atheist is and not let it be done by theists. This is why it is important to engage believers; hopefully, in a way that does not reinforce negative stereotypes about us. So, at the very least, they might walk away with something to think about.

I'm very much agnostic, and I take a loft of flack from my atheist friends for not just admitting that I'm "for all intents and purposes," atheist. But I'm not, and there's a reason.

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?

As far as I see it they are not afraid to describe themselves as Atheist...simply they are not completely sure god doesn't exist.

Simply because they are not emotionally "there" yet.

OK, this answer is just for MichaelSpinler and Heathenfarmer, as I think they'll approve. Everyone else will probably hate me for it, report me, send me to agnostic hell, whatever....

Agnostics are just atheist pussies!

I really don't see why it matters so much?

I took me a while to give up on theism. At that time I identified as an agnostic because I wasn’t sure. Later I read “The God Delusion” where Dawkins talked about levels of agnosticism and I determined that I was in actuality an atheist so I started identifying as such. I didn’t have a fear of the word atheist.

They feel as if it is a safe place, a place where the believer can still think there is "hope" for you. There is less of a stigma attached to being agnostic. Those who cling to agnosticism, may still be hoping for an afterlife possibility, and the fear of death remains. It is a scary step to let go of something that the people who loved you, told you was important, and who also instilled fear. This is not an attack on agnostics, although my comments are blunt, but a thorough research into both history and science can only lead one to atheism. For many people it comes with time. Agnosticism says that we don't know, that we don't have the knowledge, but we do. Gawd is a made up concept.

Personally I avoid calling myself an atheist because they've made a bad name for themselves. A lot of atheists I've met have come across just as belligerent as theists, and I'd prefer not to lump myself in with that. I prefer antitheist anyway, because I don't lack religion, I reject it.

I'm not afraid of the word 'atheist.' I'm self-described! Some people just don't think they know enough yet; I've been there, but that was long ago.

Lack of commitment

Yes, I really like your way of clarifying the distinction of the two words and how they are used. Admittedly, I call myself an atheist with the understanding that I am not saying it because I "know" or "believe" that there are no god(s). I say it because I have had quite a few acquaintances who think that if the word agnostic gets them by when they die or at some apocalyptic event they can say that they didn't actually reject god(s), but just were not sure. In other words for some the word agnostic is an insurance policy in case there is god(s). Thus, I tell people I am an "open minded atheist." Although, your "atheistic agnostic" does appeal to me and avoids being in the "safe" group in case I am wrong.

Many identify atheists with politics namely Communism and do not wish to be identified as such.They do not take the time or do not wish to explain that atheism and politics are different and not to be confused as the same. It just so happened that Communism adopted atheist positions because they saw the damage religion had done among governments . Unfortunately they chose to force it upon their people and gave atheism a bad name. They forget that Christians forced their religion upon many people as does Islam.

It's a dumb word. I'm not a theist and I don't want to utilize confusing words so I also don't walk around telling people I'm amurderer or arapist. The only term I'm really ok with is non-theist, but when forced to identify with a label of religion, I'll select agnostic but only because "no" isn't ever available.

The only thing stopping me from being an all-out atheist is a healthy sense of skepticism where I'm willing to be proven wrong with appropriate evidence.

Whether the literal definition of atheist does or does not require the rejection of the possibility of a god that is its common usage. Since usage determines what is communicated to others, relying solely on a literal definition serves to focus more on the speaker's mind than that of the listener.
This is an ignorant approach to communication because it ignores the importance conveying the same thoughts one has to another rather than a distortion.
I wholly support the usage of the term agnostic if for no other reason than to facilitate communication. To quibble over definitions serves to do nothing but stroke the ego of the speaker.

I like the term "non-theist"; it's how I describe myself. The new "Atheist Movement" has a lot of baggage attached to it, with it even being described as an aggressive "religion" that proselytizes, therefore I avoid the label. Dawkin's scale is very accurate IMHO.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Just to establish context, that means I do not believe there is a god or afterlife, but I can't know that there absolutely ISN'T an afterlife or god. It's like "So far, with the overwhelming lack of evidence at hand, there is no god"

I only maintain a smidgen of skepticism for the "there is no god" argument because, if somehow I am presented with actual evidence, I'll be prepared to acknowledge it. But as Asimov once said, the more outrageous the claim, the more convincing the evidence must be.

There are two positions you can hold with regard to belief in gods. You either do (theist) or don't (atheist). If you "don't know" then you don't believe and you are an atheist. It does not matter what you want to call yourself because we don't get to change what words mean just because we want to. An agnostic isn't an alternative to theist or atheist, it is a position on the scale within those groups. You can be an agnostic theist, meaning you believe but are not completely sure, or an agnostic atheist meaning you lack belief but are not completely sure.
If you cannot say, "I believe there is a god" then you are an atheist - by definition!

They may be afraid that they may be ostracized.

It's the 'sitting on the fence' position, and people who are indoctrinated have trouble reaching the other side. I respect their views though, and understand that fitting in is sometimes more important to people than their own beliefs. No one likes to be an outcast.

I think for some persons it comes out of not wantign to make waves or ruffle feathers. By saying "maybe" the religious don't take as great offense as they do with a definite "no." It is just easier to get along as an agnostic instead of as an atheist.

I describe myself as an atheist, I tell people there is not evidence of god, but if evidence ever arises I may re-evaluate my position. I just make it cler that the unexplained is not proof of god, but just shows that we have yet to learn a gret deal about the universe in which we live.

Technically we are all agnostics because even though there is no proof that God exists, there is also no proof that "he" doesn't. By that I mean that we could very well be in some kind of matrix-like simulation where something is pulling the strings. At least Elon Musk thinks that it's a possibility.

Words are important and they can shape how one feels about certain issues. Words need to change to reflect the changing mores. When one says 'homosexuality' or 'global warming' or many other heretofore negative terms one shows where they stand on an issue. Atheist is and will continue to be negative (godless is negative godfree is positive). Some people understand this and want to use a milder form as agnostic. One group the 'Brights' are attempting to replace a negative term with something more positive. It is an international movement with a lot of famous people on board. Also, agnostic can be more broad and I am sure there are people sitting on the fence who are looking for more evidence for one side or another (hence this site).