Agnostic among Atheists

[GrandizerII]

So, I don't consider myself atheist, but the agnostic label fits me perfectly well.

That's a perfectly acceptable label, all on its own. You don't have to use the "agnostic atheist" stuff a minority of people are pushing. 

Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined was a belief in that scientific method, and it amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with atheism, the belief gods do not exist, or theism, the belief gods do exist.

Anyone claiming agnosticism doesn't cover belief, has never read Huxley ...

"I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may."

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." 

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."

---

"Agnostic atheist" is actually the term that doesn't describe a specific position, by any definition. Someone can have no belief, either way, and someone could believe gods don't exist, but not claim to know, and both be "agnostic atheist". Then you have to add weak/negative/soft or strong/positive/hard qualifiers on top, making the a-theist labelling system a convoluted mess. 

I would say an agnostic strong atheist only has a minor burden of proof. All they have to say is for a grand entity like God, there is an utter lack of evidence for his existence.Then it's up to the theist to provide conclusive evidence for God, and this is something they have yet to succeed in doing so.