6 The problem with the Dawkins scale it is does not a take into account that if a god is by definition inpercieveable then one can not know what one can not know, so one could not be 100 percent sure there is no god. I am certain there is no god, however I can not to claim to know what by definition can not be known. Thus I am an agnostic atheist.

I don't fall on the Dawkins scale, because all positions on it are literalist positions.
I'm not a literalist.
I fall off the Dawkins scale.

I do not see the Dawkins scale as accurately predictive or representative of anything. It perpetuates the notion that agnosticism is some sort of transitional state between theism and atheism when in fact it varies independently of both. And because of this, if you understand that theism is inherently non-falsifiable and thus you have to remain agnostic about any knowledge claims about deities, then it becomes so hard to form a belief in the absence of knowledge that atheism (which speaks to the absence of belief rather than the absence of knowledge) is pretty much guaranteed.

That said, the subhead under #6 would describe my technical, philosophical stance, and #7 would describe my practical, lived-out stance, though I would never couch it in those terms since the absence of falsifiability makes theism something no one can have 100% confidence about one way or the other.

That makes you an agnostic neo-deist.

What god is he suggesting?