I am an antithiest..

I am 100% certain that the god of the old and new testaments is as real as Santa Claus, Thor, Athena and the Easter bunny. These are clearly constructs of the human imagination, in keeping with the societies that produced them.

Why the heck do I need to define myself?

I waffle on 6 and 7. Part of me wants to say being openly honest and rational I should say 6 to demonstrate I would not deny objective proof. On the other hand there is nothing about 7 that says I would have to...

Blah blah blah, there is no god.

#6 for me because I don't believe supernatural beings are falsifiable and so make no knowledge claim about god's existence one way or the other and hold no belief for or against.

However ... that's not functionally different than #7. Only philosophically different. I don't think #7 is philosophically defensible. But I act as if it were

I also don't agree with mixing in agnosticism in this scale, or the persistent (and wrong) notion that agnosticism means thinking god's existence or non-existence is "equiprobable". The knowledge question varies independently of the belief question, although they do influence each other. Originally, Huxley meant agnosticism to mean "there is no way to make a supportable knowledge claim either way". It's philosophically impossible, not a question of uncertainty.