First off, for clarity, I identify as De-Facto Atheist.
To address various categories of agnostics,
I refer you to the link in this post: "What Does It Mean to Be Agnostic?"
It spurred much discussion, which may be of interest.

"Strong agnostics believe there is no way for anyone to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God neither exists or doesn’t exist. That means that any argument people make for one side or the other are using subjective arguments to try and prove their point. And because those depend on a person’s unique beliefs, thoughts, and experiences, they aren’t objective...which means that neither side’s arguments about the existence of a higher power can’t be considered “fact.” "

"....Weak agnostics believe that just because something cannot be proven right now doesn’t mean it can never be proven!"

"....Apathetic agnostics also believe that there is no proof that a higher power does or doesn’t exist. But unlike strong and weak agnostics, apathetic agnostics believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter."
Hence, such agnostics may be more interested in pizza....

When you say "God or gods" do not exist you are implying that only your definition of God or gods is valid. To say: you defination of what you would say is a God must be non-existent otherwise you do not view it as a style of god.

If a person wants to say a red solo plastic cup is his God, the cup exist and labeled by a person to be a God. To that person it exists as a God. This does not mean you must worship the cup unless you are in a position of being force6by the person to worship the cup. Otherwise, he has an existing god. To you just a cheap disposable cup that could be drank out of. Nonetheless, we have a God that exist to someone and I am not going to specifically tell someone they cannot consider their cup a God.

Not that I am recommending or condoning cups to be gods, a god could exist that way for someone.

If a person born with genetic D.N.A. X Y chromosome most traditionally called a male that wants to be called and transformed into what's called a female; how different is it calling that person a female as compared to calling a person a God that wants to be recognized as a God? So do you reject the existence of a person because of their choice of pronoun?

It is a matter of semantics, definitional differences. It is short-sighted and inappriately narrow to simply declare one right and therefore the other wrong.

Atheism is a label declaring non-BELIEF. Agnostic is declaring that deity is something beyond definitive KNOWLEDGE or that can't be known. These are two separate things.
I am both atheist and agnostic for that reason. Just the mere fact I see no valid evidence and therefore don't waste my time believing in deity does not mean I can presume to know all. What do I know of dark energy and what it is and how it shapes the universe, for example? "God" is such an amorphous concept that people interpret how they feel like. Asserting absolute certainty about shifting sands seems a somewhat pointless exercise to me.

But to each their own.

I agree with you and always said Agnostics are Atheists without conviction.

what if the best definition for “God” is “Namely because of the way the Universe and Nature is according to science?”
(”Test everything, and keep what is good”)

I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic = no knowledge of any gods existing and Atheist = lack of belief in any gods. We don't know if there are any gods, we lack evidence that any gods exist.

Thumbs up for you.

Science doesn't know squat about quantum physics so the possibility exists there. To say there's no possibility because science hasn't yet found it, or hasn't yet explored a major portion of existence. is kind of arrogant but I'm not being judgmental on you. I've committed arrogance a number of times. I have this theory and have come to see that the likely way forward, from all the issue divisions, is to adopt a new idea which includes science and spirit. Not until then can we even hope to advance from where we are.

i love the sentence u wrote starting with Namely

fantastic

reminds me of when i used to say ... i can't abandon all of my critical faculty's to believe the bible

I think there are different points here.

First a point about definition. There is a tendancy, and it's not just a tendancy of theists, to see agnostics as the 'unsure' who are sitting on the fence, not able to say whether they believe in a god or not. In effect there are the theists at one end of the 'belief spectrum', the atheists at the other (both feeling certain) - and between them a swathe of agnostics who won't say one way or the other.

I actually see this as a false concept. For me theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are answers to fundamentally different questions:-

Do you believe god exists? Yes means theist, no means atheist.

Do you believe the existence, or otherwise, of god can actually be proven? Yes means gnostic, no means agnostic.

To declare one potential answer to the second question is really an inability to answer the first is actually mixing two inherently unconnected concepts - the existence (or not) of god, and the existence (or not) of proof.

Do I believe in the existence of god? No I do not - I'm an atheist.

Do I believe the non-existence of god will ever be provable? No I do not - I'm an agnostic.

I'm BOTH.

Then there is the whole matter of how certain is 'certainty'.

It is possible that I am a 17 inch high, flourescent pink alien who lives on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri - and that I am barking mad. It's possible that every moment of the 'human life' of which I am aware is nothing more than the insane delusion of a corrupted, out-of-control alien mind - that every moment, every experience, of my 57 years on earth is just a delusion, and that I am typing these words on a non-existent mobile phone, to post on a non-existent page on a non-existent website.

It's possible - but, you know what? It's very, very unlikely.

So when does 'very, very unlikely' actually become 'impossible'? This is a very difficult question because it is almost always possible something you believe to be true could be false, or something you believe to be false could be true.

There is always a point, for everyone, when the chances of X being wrong are so small you say X is proven - but is there actually zero chance of X being wrong, or just such a tiny chance that you'd have to be a bit of an idiot to give it any meaningful credence?

There are lots of subtleties here.