Though it seems unacceptable to some people here, there exist Agnostics, who think that both mere naturalism and certain forms of supernaturalism are serious possible options. As I declared in my original post I believe that both views should be considered in ethics in order to promote a more veracious behavior.

In Austria the position of Agnostics, who declare not to be Atheists, is widely accepted. The citizens elected a person, who declared to be such an Agnostic, in the last three presidential elections. I personally do have some doubts, whether both (the first one was reelected one time) are real Agnostics, but perhaps only pretend to be so, to be more acceptable for religious people. Nevertheless it shows that our society is quite secular, since even religious people had no problems with voting for candidates, who do not explicitly believe in god.

In one of my answers to comments here, I mentioned the abstract hypothesis of “intelligent design”, which was even propagated by the highest representative of the Catholic Church in Austria, because he feared that the Church’s reputation in Austria might be impaired by reports about crude American Creationists positions, which look quite ridiculous to most of our people.

This does not mean that I personally do fully agree with that hypothesis. If some sort of intelligence were involved in the evolution of humans (a limited form of Darwinism even is accepted by most members of Christian churches in Austria), then it must be a quite error-prone form in the face of my problems with vertebrae and hernia, which demonstrate a quite bad anatomic design. I personally believe that hypotheses containing an almighty, omniscient, and absolutely good being can be dismissed by empiric evidence and rational reasoning fairly well. (However, a cogent argumentation isn’t as simple as some Atheists might think.) But there is still plenty of room for the potential existence of less wise, less potent or bad (sadistic, sadomasochistic) divine beings.

To sum up once again, there is a significant chance for the existence of supernatural things, beings, and dimensions in my opinion, but mere naturalistic views also constitute serious hypotheses, as far as they are not ideologically considered as the only reasonable option.
So I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist.

There is evidence that the universe could have been created without the help of divine intervention but it's true we cannot prove there is no god. However if you're 95% sure there is no god, why not just round it up?

Atheism isn't a positive claim, it is a non belief of one. IMO all agnostics are also atheists since they do not believe in the god claim. At the same time, all atheists are agnostics as well, because no one 'knows' if one exists, including nostics and theists. They are just dishonest about it.
Most atheists are open to new evidence, as much as most agnostics are.

As far as reincarnation goes, it is total BS, and doesn't deserve any consideration.

Ayyyyy! I love long winded rambles full of thinky thoughts.

A lot of folks invoke half understood theoretical physics to lend weight to the notions of mystical realities. To be clear, most of the stuff people invoke is some of the most speculative and tenuous stuff in the body of physics... there is nothing close to a consensus about which (if any) of this stuff is accurate. People are constantly sharing bad understanding of theory to support woo notions. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, AKA Shrodinger's Cat, Aka The Oberver Effect is a classic example of this. The "waveform" of particles does not collapse merely from observation. Think of a coin spinning through space, you will not know what the "state" of the coin in any given position unless you "catch" and "observe" it in a heads up or tails up position. It is not "observation" that interfers with the particle... it's your dang measurement apparatus that does the diddiling!

As for a larger unknown "something" that may or may not exist beyond our minds? We cannot know for certain... but my postulate is that the same pricipals that organized our minds into a form which brought rise to thought and identity needen't be restricted to the homo sapien scale. I can see how we could just be neurons, or "cells" in a giant brain-body... thing. I mean we are for sure... it's called society. The question is... how "aware" is the social body? If it was "aware" would we know, or would be so simple that communication with a more sophisticated strata of awareness would be impossible? Like trying to talk to one of your skin cells.

I think your comment about the neccesity for ritual is on point. I think it's easy to dismiss religion with a hand wave as ignorant superstition. I'm not suggesting any of the dumb myths are real... but I think the fact that every single culture has some kind of religion to be indicitive of more than abject stupidity and superstition. I think folks do have "revelations" which they try to explain as best they can in the available language and culture, after whence they are immediately misunderstood and their stories are repreated to justify killing other people somehow.

I have simplified the tug of war between atheism and agnosticism with one word "freethinker."

I'm confused about this post? Or maybe I'm too dumb to understand all these words that I had to look up? What does all of what you wrote have to do with you choosing to be an agnostic?

Okay, but there's no logical, inescapable connection between what you believe and the reasons you cite.

There's a large leap between the quantum entanglement principle and the conclusion that there's an afterlife. You can cite quantum mechanics phenomena ad infinitum, but you still believe what you want without evidence. Your welcome to believe what you want, but there's no compelling evidence.

There is a lot there, but just sticking with Agnostism. I think Agnostism is a type of atheism. Both are without a belief in theism.

Agnostics seem to play up the uncertainty that we have as to weather there is some form of theist God(s) . I'm uncertain of a lot of things, but I'm without belief until there is evidence.

Some atheist do profess certainty in the null hypothesis (no God) which has cause many to think that all atheist are just as certain, but simply based on definitions and custom, it's not true. I'm not certain there is no God, but based on all the evidence I've seen, it's not worth considering unless there is something new. That point of view and certainty of no God(s) look really similar to an outsider.

This is the thing ,agnostic is what you know or not know I should say.As and agnostic all you are saying I don't knowif theiris a god?so you can choose to be a theist ,and act like you believe since you don't know you can't really believe, or be and atheist and say I don't believe because of lack of proof

I see myself as an Agnostic because I just don't know anything for sure except that no religion can possibly be valid. It all comes down to energy in my mind and not even a great mind such as Hawking is capable of comprerhending any creative power so I just ask my inner self what best serves humanity in any situation and try to do whatever causes me the least dissonance. Our spiritual selves just have not been quantified as of yet but we are just now getting into quantum mechanics and eventually some great mind might find some answers.