I am using an alternative definition of 'god...' at least a tentative, prospective one.
Atheists reject the personal, Abrahamic god who created the universe, answers prayer, sends us to hell, you know, all that crude, primitive stuff ALL non-religious people reject, not just atheists.
As an AGNOSTIC, however, I don't have to believe the obvious fact a 'good god' would not be capable of creating hell, to speculate an entirely different 'type' of god might exist, such as the concept subscribed to by neo-deists or pantheists, for instance.
I've no idea WHAT that God might be, but I think we can safely say what 'god' isn't.
So I was thinking about what the 'ultimate answer' to life's Big Questions might look like. And once we've finally isolated 'god' in a test tube, what IT might look like.
And if we CAN'T isolate it, be it 'consciousness' or whatever, well that doesn't prove it doesn't exist, does it? I mean, we KNOW consciousness exists, right, because we both have it, correct?
So all we can really do is wonder about it, which I realize as an atheist you can't do. But I can.

Right. Exactly.
But we DO know better now, than to personify or anthropomorphize that explanation.
If we're running a maze, we don't stop when/if we reach a dead end. We cross that blind alley off, maybe mark it with a red flag, and keep going until we find the right way out.
Similarly, if we know what 'god' isn't, using our reason, powers of observation, and common sense, we will eventually come to one of two final conclusions:

1. god by any definition definitely does not exist, or
2. god DOES exist, if we mean by that word a certain thing. Here is the meaning, condensed into a definition.
   We know one thing for a virtual fact: people will not stop looking for one of those two answers to that question until they find it. To do as atheists do, and simply make up one's mind without evidence, simply will not satisfy open-minded people who require information which adds up to proof.
   The least we can do, as agnostics, is keep trying to narrow the search, invent--if we must--new and more sophisticated 'religions' perfectly matched and updated to the level of our knowledge, and ask more enlightened and appropriate questions.

@Storm1752 there are already belief sets that encompass nothing but science so there's a whole gamut of options available already dude.

@JeffMesser That's true, but I'd rather risk saying something original, and try to educate and persuade hard-core atheists there's another way to think of the subject of 'god,' though I know it's a difficult (bordering on hopeless!) enterprise.
Dude.

@Storm1752 risk saying something original? just because you havent been aggressive enough in study doesn't make your supposition original ... especially when the views in question have been around for thousands of years. Secular nonduality has been around since the origin of the upanishads but was especially prominent during the time of Sri Adi Shankaracharya - an 8th century CE scholar. That hardly makes your thoughts original. dude.

Right. Understood. If that satisfies your curiousity, who am I to say you're being mentally lazy and intellectually stubborn? Nobody.
But I AM still curious. Just saying certain things are so, without evidence, just because I THINK they are, isn't good enough for me. Most Agnostics suspect quite strongly there are answers yet to be uncovered.
After all, were certain people satisfied with the explanation the sun (and everything else in the sky) revolved around the Earth?
Most were.
EVERYBODY was pressured into believing that, because it was easier and safer that way. We would have discovered the truth eventually anyway, because our instruments and calculations couldn't have been denied forever, but it just goes to show how wrong the 'obvious, easy truth' can easily become an obvious, embarassing lie.

@Storm1752 That is very true, but you have to be aware of the, 'proving my father was a fish', type of fallacy.