This is an ongoing question on this site and is a non issue as far as I am concerned .These labels are just as insipid as the labels on different religious ideologies in that all claim they are correct and everyone else is wrong

It's only a spectrum in some people's minds.

100% Atheist, that's where I stand and always will stand.

Well look at all these individualists who reject labels!!! Oops, "individualist" is a label. Ok, mavericks, then. Darn, another label.

Labels will never completely define us, but that doesn't mean they don't apply or aren't useful. It is called "language." More specifically, adjectives and nouns. Handy things, those words. Often helpful in getting some degree of our intended message across. Try it sometime.

BTW, judging by a lot of the responses, I think people are misconstruing some of the meanings. "Gnostic atheist" has nothing to do with with anything religious. It is not like the "Gnostic Gospels." It simply is a more specific category of atheist.

Obviously,this is a semantics game. If you aren't motivated, don't play. But it is wrong to claim that labels have absolutely no value. At least in science and other aspects of academic learning, they are crucial.

I did vote,btw. "Agnostic atheist." I know that I don't know most of of what runs the cosmos, ...so agnostic. Additionally, I see no reason to attribute the fact the cosmos is here to there being a god, ...so atheist.

I would like to see the third diagram large enough to read. Do you have a link?
Actually, I found it in one of your links but I still can't read it.

None of the above. Can't speak for other non-subscribers to 'isms', but the whole point personally in rejecting gods and theologies was to assert individual validity that transcends labeling. Labeling and clinging to 'off the menu' other group myths kind of makes the process pointless.

The big myth is that one is in need of categorization for validation; as though no franchise means your system of thought is irrelevant.

It is impossible to agree or disagree with any point of view without finding oneself surrounded by a herd or two of identity cattle. When the issues change though, so does the company for an individual. Visiting doesn't translate into membership. Unfortunately to the hooved and branded it is beyond their scope.

None of the above, these sort of over complications are just stupid.
Answer one simple question,
are you of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a god(s)?
Answer yes You are a theist
Answer no You are an atheist
Answer I don't know You are an idiot

I agree with MsDemeanor below. (I'm a proud Atheist due to lack of ANY evidence for a supernatural anything. I agree with Thomas A. Edison who said, "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk... All Bibles are man-made." )

But even more than that, at age 66, I have witnessed an explosion of Scientific knowledge just in my lifetime, and as an engineer, I always want to know how and why things work as they do!

Scientists are pushing back the wall of ignorance at an astounding rate! Religion thrives and even depends on our ignorance! But without ignorance, we have no need for their gods or superstitions.

While we may never know everything, what was once a mystery is now largely understood and much is even manipulated by Scientists and engineers. (For example: Did you know that approximately 75% of all processed food in our grocery stores contains (or was made from) Genetically Modified plants or animals: GMO's.

Big Al

Don't care much for labels. No shortage of 'ists', 'ives', and 'isms' in the world, most if not all of which are meant to divide us in my opinion.

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." - Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

Seems to me like I'm a middle-of-the-road atheist. Is it possible to be neither a gnostic nor an agnostic?

SPOILER ALERT! I'm going to say something about his novel, "Contact". If you have not yet read it, and think that you might want to, please be warned that my comment below includes a spoiler, so you may want to stop here.

I always had the impression that Sagan was an Agnostic and an Atheist. This is based on a number of things that he said in his PBS series "Cosmos".

But, the final paragraph of "Contact" says that his protagonist, a long-avowed Atheist, now believes that the universe was created on purpose.

I don't believe that it was, and I was surprised that he would write a novel where his protagonist would come to this conclusion. So, now I don't know where he stood.

The only info on the meaning of the terms to vote on are found in the first diagram, "Belief Bubbles". The definition for "Agnostic Atheist" is the same as "Agnostic Theist". They both "don't believe in God". This used to be called just "agnostic" until people tried to include it within the definition of "atheist". I think the idea was to increase the number of "atheists" by expanding the definition. It just added confusion and presented new problems.

That diagram refers to a specific god and i would have to assume this is in reference to the god of Abraham. But, that's just a guess. When people say they are atheistic toward the Christian god, i call them "Christian Atheists" because they are referring to only that god. It helps clarify that we aren't talking about just any god. If this is about how people feel about gods in general, it should use the plural. You have to believe in the existence of gods before you can believe there is only one.

Henotheistic agnostic: I assume many gods (job title, with no assumption as to what they demand of anyone) in any sense "exist" and would be prepared to pick and choose if and when and to what degree inclined. In profound sympathy with atheistic agnostics.

In England until recently most of the latter called themselves simply "atheists" and were the pillars of society and were welcoming and protective and broad minded. Likewise, most believers were assumed to be to a degree agnostic. The term "creation" was used by everybody to denote simply "nature" and the fact that matter / life arrived.

That was before all the latest wedge driving. I hate all-or-nothing. I hate package dealing. Go cafeteria.

I think most of the time, when someone is discussing God, they are talking either about the God of the universe or one of the Gods created on Earth by mankind.
I think Einstein (although a Jew) believed in some sort of god of the universe, but not any earthly gods. He said "God doesn't play dice".

I just found a video of Ricky Gervais duking it out with Stephen Colbert. In it, Gervais says, "I'm an agnostic atheist."
"Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert go head to head on religion."

Oh no! I didn't realize that updating the poll would reset vote counts. I apologize if your vote was discounted. Fortunately I took a look at the numbers before updating the entry. At the time I updated the options the poll the count was around the following:

3 Gnostic Atheist
6 Agnostic Atheist
1 Agnostic Theist

Hopefully the new entries will help make up for the vote counts that can't be readily seen, but for this comment.