I understand the difference on a technical level, but I think you have to take into account the way language is used colloquially.  I feel that if I told people I'm an agnostic atheist, I wouldn't be effectively explaining my view to them.

You may still have significant doubt even though you think we can't know for sure. The thing is, there are agnostic theists too. Neither agnostic, gnostic, theist or atheist are enough by themselves. You need to have both to describe someone. People saying "I'm agnostic" are just misusing the word. Most likely they are agnostic atheists, aka "I believe there is no God" (there's the doubt) "but we can't disprove a theoretical God".

But by saying common sense, he's indirectly saying that anyone that thinks otherwise is stupid. What he should have said is that it makes sense to HIM.

Well I've been calling myself an agnostic Atheist for quite some time, it wasn't really a choice for me, I can't force myself to believe in such nonsense. I was a Christian growing up, obviously indoctrinated by my family. Once I actually started to think critically of Religion is when I saw them for what they truly are, just aged old mythology used to explain stuff we didn't understand then. After leaving Christianity I researched a bunch of religions because I desperately wanted to find something I can really connect with to have that spiritual connection people talk about. Sadly I found that all organized religions are equally flawed/crazy, although some of them sounded really cool from a fictional standpoint.

I'm not opposed to a creator/god but I think organized religions are so dated and are holding society back in many ways, screw those cults, forge your own beliefs.

Yeah, I get that, but I think the language is imprecise.  There is a difference between someone who can't completely disprove god, and someone who thinks there is a reasonable chance that god (yahweh) exists.  That's why I prefer Dawkin's terminology (de facto atheist, strong atheist, weak atheist etc.) better.  

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I don't think that's what he meant.  I believe he meant that it is abundantly obvious, and any rational person should be able to see it, not that it's just his interpretation.  If that idea is offensive to other people, so be it, but if that's his opinion which the topic was asking for (again don't want to shove words in his mouth) I can't think of a clearer way to express it.

I understand. In my original post, I mostly wanted to address the people who say things like "Agnosticism is weak athiesm for people who are scared or think athiesm is bad. Some agnostics can be thiests, some can be indifferent, and others can actively disbelieve in the existence of a god. While athiesm might describe an agnostic athiest better than agnosticism, colloquially, agnosticism has a much wider meaning and a larger spectrum. To characterize it as "weak athiesm" (something with an entirely different meaning) is to over-simplify things in my opinion. They are answers to very different questions. If somebody asked me "Do you believe we can know anything about the existence of a deity?" I'd say, "no, I am an agnostic." If somebody asked me, "do you believe in the existence of a deity?" I'd say, "No, I am an athiest." The usefulness of making this distinction for the context of somebody who wants to understand is that it helps explain where the athiesm comes from. In my case, it comes from my agnosticism. My beliefs are rooted in empiricism and rationalism. Therefore, anything that I am agnostic about I cannot form a positive belief for. The athiesm of a gnostic comes from something very much different. They believe that they've disproved the diety, logically, and therefore can't believe in his existence because he does not exist.

This also helps inform us of the two types of theists. There are those who "feel" a god exists, based on anecdotal "knowledge"/pattern-seeking and instinct and there are those who know a god exists based on logic and/or teachings/scripture. I've found the first group much more tolerable than the second and I can empathize with them much more. 

I totally agree with all that, and were I having a conversation with someone knowledgable about atheism and angosticism, I'd have no problem identifying as an agnostic in regards to yahweh.  But, like you said, a lot of people think agnosticism is weak atheism, and I don't want to give that impression.

It's nice when someone saves me the time of typing my own post :P

To add to this I was brought up Christian but eventually realised I simply didn't believe and came to this realisation the same way (I'm not saying this to be dissrespectful) I realised I didn't believe in Santa Claus.  I simply arrived at a point where believing made less sense than not believing. For me personally, God does not help to explain how existance, as we know it, came to be.

I would like to add, that this does not make me a horrible person nor make me feel that the universe less wondrous.  I still believe in being a good person, simply for the sake of it and not due to fear or some supposed reward in the afterlife. I believe that all of 'creation' ;) is splendid and magnificent and even more so because it started from something so simple and so mysterious rather than a personified deity.

There is an actual term for that its what i refer to myself as which is an apatheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism welcome to the club :)