I've already said it somewhere up there but I don't like the distinction between agnosticism and atheism at all. I bet it has been invented by believers and if that's true, then I must applaud them for this important strategic victory on the rhetoric battlefield.
The problem with these two terms is that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't (pun intended).
Point is,I think that the folk definition of atheism is restricted to atheism type 2) of Vexx' post, if not worse. A kind of anti-religion in the truest sense of the word, a stance not supported by reason but believed from the bottom of the heart. Because otherwise, so people would argue, you're not really an atheist but an agnosticist.
On the other hand, agnosticism sounds more like being totally unsure about one's own position which can thus not really be taken serious. Because otherwise, so people would argue now, you're not really an agnosticist but an atheist.
The agnosticism/atheism distinction is the root of the dilemma and creates more smoke than removing it. This is why I deleted agnosticism from my active vocabulary. (It was never part of it actually.)
I have no problems being called an atheist as in 1). But way too often I have to stress the fact that my "belief" in atheism is in no way a belief in the religious sense. Is doesn't go as deep as that. I also can't prove that it is right. What can we prove anyway? But that does not mean that I'm somehow sitting on the fence.
If for example a boxing world champion is boxing a 10 years old kid, I have for many reasons a rather strong "belief" that the world champion will win. But the belief is not absolute. It doesn't mean that my world would shatter if he doesn't win. Maybe he gets a heart attack from too much doping right after the fight starts. This strong "belief" does not influence my ethical values, nor do I think that it's important enough to build incense-filled stone buildings around it. That is my atheism.