I identify, first and foremost, as a nullifidian--a person who has no faith or religious belief. Faith is an unreliable reasoning process which acts as a virus. To quote Peter Boghossian, 'faith is pretending to know things you do not know.' All should be inoculated against the virus of faith. As far as religious belief goes, religions and their clergy, scriptures, doctrines and creeds are, in my opinion, without value and even harmful, and should be jettisoned from societies.

From that premise, if there were a god, it/she/he is irrelevant and I have no knowledge of it/her/him, and I most certainly have no belief in it/her/him. Lacking knowledge of a deity defines me as an agnostic, while lacking a belief in such defines me as an atheist. I don't really care either way ... I'm just a nullifidian.

I don’t actually care what anyone else believes, unless it hurts someone else without their consent.
Agnostic to me is the ability to not care about things that don’t matter to me, and prioritise the things that do: there’s a great freedom in that.
Sometimes others’ beliefs interest me, often these days, they don’t. Some beliefs I respect, others I find it very difficult to, but I try and get along with everyone as best I can.

The guy in the institution who thinks he is napoleon finds his bekiefs reasonable. It doesn't matter what we nonbelievers call ourselves. Believers believe and therefore find their beliefs reasonable. Users use them and either do not actually believe or have made themselves believe that there js a god who wants them each to have a orivate jet or two. What has any of that got to do with what we call ourselves?

g