I Am Agnostic, Not Atheist And Not Confused!

I'm sincerely happy for you. I think it's vital for people to learn to laugh about themselves, laugh about religion, and learn how to just be OK with themselves whatever they believe.

Me too. It's the legacy of militant atheists from the Soviet Union who first promoted doublespeak as a way to bring agnostics into the fold. In the US especially it's turned into a nightmare thanks to our culture already being influenced by professional wrestling style trash talking fundamentalists. It used to be atheists were famous for being intellectuals, but these days they're increasingly low brow trolls. Ironically I prefer British atheists like Pat Condell for his blunt honesty and lack of interest in mincing words to American atheists who've come to represent the worst in Evangelical atheists.

Most American atheists remind me of the people who feel smug about not owning a TV or knowing anything about pop culture, or the people who make a big deal about not knowing anything about hiphop or country, only about obscure bands or classical music, or the people who are ever so proud of not eating meat or wearing leather shoes.

Religion has a nasty side. It also gave us Bach, classical art in all cultures, gospel, and common cultural understandings across national lines. not having a tv means you may read more, but if you don't have any interest in any popular culture, you are essentially a willful cultural illiterate. Most 'classical' music was once pop, and nobody cares about most obscure bands for a reason. Not having to eat meat is a luxury for people in a protein-rich society, and leather goods tend to last a lot longer than do ones made out of fossil fuels.
The truth is, there is a certain type of person who takes up these positions out of a desire to show some kind of moral/ethical superiority, and in that case, it's essentially narcissism. One can not watch tv and still know what's going on. One can choose to not kill animals and not make a big deal about it. One can choose to not believe in God and not call people who do 'morons.' I understand why people believe in God. It gives a sense of fellowship and community that atheists and agnostics tend to lack. It acts as a moral and cultural shorthand. It provides a framework for things as diverse as creating art to raising money to help a bereft neighbor. And yes, it acts as a shaming device - but let's face it. Some people deserve to be shamed for not caring about the poor, the sick, the hungry, the widow, the orphan, the prisoner.
I really wish I had that level of faith in something that exists outside of me and that I could share it with others in such a way that we would all want to join together as one and help one another in a visible way, and help others, too, and to have a straight-up set of guidelines that would help me out when times got rough or confusing. I wish I could believe someone loved me so much that he always watched over me every minute of the day, and took care of me when I wasn't looking, and carried me when I didn't feel strong. But I don't. Nor do I think it's ignorant to believe such things, or to interpret the beauty in the world as a gift from God. It's just another way of looking at things.
I admit that I do believe that there are things I cannot see, even with human-made optics, that may very well exist. It's not like I think stem cells magically came into being, or that atoms didn't exist when people couldn't see them. I believe there may be perfectly rational but odd explanations for certain super and preternatural things. If prions exist, vampires might exist in some form also. Maybe 'saints' are simply what we call people who exemplify the greatest cultural ideals, and we make them real because none of us want to feel alone. Maybe some Buddhists are right in feeling that the supreme being is a construct made up of all of us. I feel more comfortable with ideas like these than with a idea that God doesn't exist at all simply because he refuses to indulge me by appearing in a form I can immediately recognize.

According to some psychologists religion provides "resilience" or the ability to bounce back quickly from adversity. As governments provide a certain standard of living and comprehensive safety net people simply lose interest in religion altogether. The growing majority of the thriving democracies today are overwhelmingly secular as a result. That's the thing I find most objectionable about American atheists and people like Richard Dawkins is that the evidence that religion is supported by economic conditions is overwhelming, and the one thing they avoid discussing like the plague.

As you say. People aren't stupid if they believe in a supreme being. People who fight adversity without a supreme being are, we'll, maybe not stupid, but certainly bereft.

We all want and need to be loved. Atheism is as much a privilege as is giving up meet for ethical reasons. But we're in danger too if we rely too much on outside structures like government to save us, without having inner resilience.

When I am in bad periods, I imagine a loving supreme being who protects and cherishes me. I keep that idea with me, even in the good times. In the bad times I suspect that being is as real as I am. In good times I believe it's a mere construct, but a good one. And no matter what the times are like, I try to live as if there is a supreme being watching over me, guiding me, and even scolding me when I need it. It makes my life more bearable and gives me a connection to something. It's why, even though I don't believe Jesus is my savior, I attend an episcopal church in my neighborhood and have a nodding relationship with the pastor who hears my confession. I use the church to use as a 'hotline' to Saints Mary, Teresa of Avila, and Catherine of Siena. I don't care if some people would find this silly or ignorant. It provides me with comfort, and it grounds me. Do I think people who 'know' god exists and want others to know it too are foolish? In some ways, yes. But I only dislike them for it if they try to convert me. Meanwhile those three saints nestle comfortably in my head with The Buddha, the goddess Athena, Kwan Yin, and incarnations of the Great Mother. And depending on what's going on in my life, they are all divine or just constructs to guide me.

If Dawkins, et al. Talked about economics and religion, or how they have ideas to fill in the charitable gaps that would be left if all the houses of worship close, or what inspiring music they would like to offer in place of hymns, or what great art they will patronize once we put Michaelangelo and other artists in a dustbin, I might be willing to buy what they are selling. But they offer nothing.
I love science. It far outstrips nonsense like ghosts or tarot cards or Kim Kardashian. But science in and of itself can't replace the weigh of several hundred years that I felt when visiting Notre Dame, or the even heavier weight I feel when looking at a carving of the Buddha. The universe is divine and so is the Higgs Boson, but people working in a lab? No. And in my admittedly meaningless opinion, I believe the reason why so many people of European descent are always trying to poach the spiritualities of other ethnic groups is because spiritually many of them have a hole that cannot be filled by a sterile god who has no form and doesn't marry, and whose followers seem to loathe and fear the feminine essence that make the earth and universe fertile. The science that Dawkins worships is a sterile one. He doesn't even have a grasp of the simple idea that spirituality can exist without religion, and that spirituality is at the heart of what makes a culture alive and vibrant. I grew up Catholic and despite the grim work of the Catholic Church's collared minions, the feminine divine principle is still embedded in the culture, and it isn't sterile. It's one of the reasons why the orthodox Chistianities still have such a compelling draw on people's hearts, regardless of who the nominal heads might be.

Words don't really have "proper" definitions, but that is a nice summation of the most commonly used definitions. Dictionaries merely list the most commonly used definitions almost always in order of how commonly they are used. Militant atheists frequently promote their own definitions of the terms in what is obviously an attempt at doublespeak, that is, to obfuscate the issues in order to promote their anti-religious agenda.

It's sad really. Atheists in the US and Britain used to have a reputation for being intellectuals, and now that is being replaced with a reputation for merely being reactionaries. Being reactionary and xenophobic has become the new party line. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I am not fighting battles for atheists. Putting the blame squarely on the religious for all the intolerance is just acknowledgement of reality.

I don't see anything that comes across as confusing in both this and the above quoted story. If anything, it is you, Kindasorta, who is confused :P