As an Agnostic Atheist I do not believe in any god, because I've seen no proof of one. However I won't assert that I "know" there are no gods at all of any kind because that would be silly. Kind of an oxymoron if you think about it... For someone to"KNOW" there are no gods of any kind, you would have to be omniscient, hence a god in your own right.

However...I will say that I do positively believe that the Christian God, at the very least, does not exist. Simply because I've read the book, which is the only solid information we have about it, and there are way too many inconsistencies, contradictions and proven falsehoods for it to exist as described.

I won't argue that there is NO "creator" or "higher power" because I'm just smart enough to realize that my knowledge is tiny compared to the vast possibilities of the universe. (Even though I believe there is none)

But I will state outright that there is and never was a magical Jesus, or YHWH of the Bible, because that's just silly fairy tale bullshit ?

Nope.

Faith is belief without regard to evidence.

I would have to disagree. It takes faith (belief in the absence of knowledge) to believe in a deity. All it takes to not believe is an examination of the scientific data provided. No scientific data actively supports the existence of a God or supernatural phenomena in a way that holds up to the burden of peer review or meets the standard of experimental replication. Science has largely separated itself from the question of religion because it exists beyond the scope of reliably observable information. I will concede that advanced sciences do require that lay-people possess a certain degree of faith in the academic community, in the scientists who do the math, and in the adaptability of science as new information arises, but the scientific community as a whole does not just accept by merit of pure ethos what any one member or hypothesis claims.

Faith is believing sans any proof. Religion is a method of controlling large masses of people.
To say there is no great creator is confirming science, unless the big bang or the big crunch is the creator one is referring to. Admittedly science is not all knowing as a god would be in current doctrine. Cultures are uncomfortable without answers to humankind's questions. The attempt to answer them results in mythology of which religion is part of. As yet for me there is no proof of a grand creator plotting the future. So without evidence I have faith that there is no god(s).

Actually it doesn't. The idea that it takes any faith not to believe something is just a semantic trick apologists use. Furthermore, agnostic tells me nothing about you other than you claim you don't know.
So, real quick, Theist = belief in god/s and atheist = does not believe in god/s. Gnostic = claims to know and agnostic = claims not to know.
Atheists don't claim there is no god, just that they don't believe there the claims there is one. Example: if you are a juror in a court room and the defendant is on trial for a crime. The defendant either has or hasn't committed the crime, guilty or innocent. Now as the juror are only asked to make a judgment on the claim of guilt, not the claim of innocence. Now, let's say you determine not guilty...that does not mean you think the defendant is innocent. That in a nutshell is the atheist position. That people make the claim "god/s exist," and atheist are saying we find god not guilty of existing. There is no claim that god/s don't exist. Just like you could say "unicorns exist," and I say I don't believe you. That doesn't mean I'm claiming there are no unicorns anywhere in the cosmos, I have no way of knowing that. I just don't believe the claim they do.
Secondly, faith is belief without good evidence. Saying I don't believe require no faith or evidence. The person saying they believe needs to be able to explain why if they want to convince others. I don't have to give a why for not believing. It's the null position. Now if someone provides good evidence and I reject it, then you can ask me why I reject this good evidence. That would be justified. If you provided me with proof of gravity and I reject your proof, I would need to explain why, and we can look at the evidence and find out if your proof is flawed, or I'm maybe not viewing it correctly. But no faith is required for disbelief. This is just something apologists and religions use to say we believe in a magical sky wizard, but you don't (which mean you are saying that there is none and it cannot exist even though you didn't say that) and both positions take faith so we're all on the same footing. NO! You don't get to put your irrational faith on the same book shelf with my rational beliefs. You're junk goes over on the other shelf with Zeus, Thor, and the Shiva. To quote Bill Maher "its from the great intellectual tradition of I know you are but what am I."
I would say, and I'm not most atheists so don't put this on atheism, that I'm certain there are no god/s. The evidence for this claim is circumstantial. To clarify, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. As my father used to say, "if I wake up and look out my window and see snow on the ground, I can't prove it snowed but I'm justified in assuming it snowed." Now everyone disbelieves in some god/s. Nobody believes in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Odin, the flying spaghetti monster, and etc at the same time. So, now the question is, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out "did god/s create man, or did man create many gods." Everyone knows the latter is true because there are some gods everyone believes are fictitious. If you find someone who believes in all gods ever, I'll make one up they don't believe in. Therefore we have countless examples with good evidence of gods that are made up, but no examples with good evidence of god/s that exist or did or created anything.
So to conclude, I am not working on faith. I have no faith. I don't believe things without good evidence. And when I have to make a decision without evidence on that decision, I don't make any suggestion that I'm doing more than guessing. When it comes to agnosticism, we all claim not to know about mystical things, which is the definition. When it come to atheism, we are all atheists in relation to most gods. Why, I'd say, because there is no good evidence. Ergo, not guilty.

Is it faith, or acquired knowledge from conscious to unconscious sources?

How much faith did it take you to dismiss Mohammed? Vishnu? Zeus?

I respectfully disagree. It’s about the evidence for the existence of a god or gods. To which I can say there haven’t been any presented to me as of yet.

Most claim lack of BELIEF in the existence of a god, as opposed to ASSERTING that no god could exist. There's a humongous difference between the two positions. Even less probable is the possibility of the god of a specific religion existing. I was able to arrive at these positions only after I educated myself in the dubious origins, scientific errors, lack of historicity, contradictions, moral shortcomings, and absurdities of religions. I could point you in so many directions to acquire this education. But since a majority of people seem to have Jesus on the brain, here is a video I've recently come across which does a great job of debunking Jesus, assuming that you accept that he existed, which is not a given:

There is not one iota of proof that there is a god but there is a hell of a lot of science that proves that all the holy books are fables! You have some very tall tales in the holy books and I have questioned many religious people about some of them and you can't get a staight answer from them. There most famous answer is "The lord speaks in mysterious ways"!

Faith is not required because I'm not trying to prove anything exists.

Faith: belief that is not based on proof:

Agnosticism: Not knowing is not faith.

I think you say what I think, but in the opposite way, which. agree with my ideas even better.

Evidence based ......

Atheism at 7 on the Dawkins scale strikes me as being as dogmatic as faith at 1 on the Dawkins scale. I believe everyone, devoutly religious or anti-religious, needs to admit that they just plain don't know. That being said, I think all current human religions are crap. Well, all of the ones I know about.

I’m very certain that unicorns don’t exist, but have no proof. Is my disbelief in them a matter of faith? Can I insist that my disbelief is truth? I find little difference between atheist and agnostic.

Good question.

I don't think faith as much as certainty, though one can get the latter from the former.

I'm inclined to think that certainty is a feeling unfounded most of the time by facts, neurologically it's not seated in the same parts of the brain as the knowledge that you would think leads to it at all. It's an emotion.

And while we can make a very convincing argument against God there's some pretty big gaps in our knowledge that lead me to think feeling certainty it's still a big leap. So faith? Kind of.

And I'm ok with uncertainty. I don't think there is a God but I don't have to have it confirmed or over express my confidence about that.

I consider myself agnostic, but atheism is often misunderstood. Refusal to buy into a theistic belief system, or anti-theism, is not faith. It is independence and honesty.

Many people seem to feel threatened when I say I am agnostic. I wouldn't call myself a "closet agnostic", but I I don't insist on sharing it. Live and let live.

I believe that most people who are atheists or agnostics are not so out of faith but rather out of self confidence in their ability to think logically.

I still hold a glimmer of hope some god or another will reveal her/his self and salvage what is left of my soul. That is highly unlikely but possible even if minutely.

I don't know about faith. I just don't believe because it doesn't sound real or possible. God also seems to be unnecessary.

I have been in a chat lately with someone that is trying to convince me there is a god! She keeps quoting for the bible as proof even as I continue to let her know the bible can not be factual! Most of the population back the was illiterate and paper wasn't invented for hundred of years. Therefore most of the bible was taken from "Old Wives" tales that were passed down through many generations. We all knw how that kind of thing will get embelished!lol I also asked her about the makeup of heaven as by what she tell me, only christians will be there. I really don't want to be there as I have friends that are Jewish, Muslim and various other religions.

I agree. As an agnostic, there is no knowing for sure. It can't be proven one way or another, since the subject and object of faith doesn't rely on external circumstance or material items.

That’s why I am 95% Athiest 5% agnostic. We can’t know for sure, either way...