Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Confused Ape]

The reason I think that atheists do that for this purpose is because whenever they get into a discussion about the existence of gods online, they ALWAYS start off by saying that atheism is a lack of belief, so they don't have the burden of proof. If the two weren't linked in terms of motivations, they wouldn't make the argument that way so routinely.

1) If a Christian starts a discussion about the existence of God by saying atheists have rejected God because they're angry with him, we have to define what atheism is. A lack of belief in deities is a useful term which covers various positions.

a) I lack belief in deities because of lack of evidence but I will change my mind if real evidence ever turns up.

b) I don't believe that deities exist. These people lack belief in deities too even though they are less neutral about it.

c) I know for a fact that deities don't exist. People who claim this still lack belief in deities.

2) If a theist claims they know for a fact that their deity exists the burden of proof is on them. This applies no matter which deity the theist believes in because the Christian God isn't the only deity which humans believe in.

3) If an atheist claims they know for a fact that no deity exists the burden of proof is on them. I'd never claim I know this for a fact because there are many different concepts of deity. I couldn't provide scientific proof that Brahman isn't absolute reality because science still hasn't discovered what absolute reality is.

So what about my own, personal opinion? I lack a belief that deities exist as objective realities. Where does the burden of proof apply here? Am I supposed to convince you or anyone else that I lack a belief that deities exist as objective realities?