Others can explain it better than I. But Agnostic itself is the lack of knowledge or having doubt. You may or may not believe in a deity along side this.
edit: I realise it's more complicated as well. As there are religions without any deity/god type beliefs, but they have their own name/identity as well.

Christian, although nobody ever guesses it. I usually only tell people if ive been drinking too much just to see their re-action, lol :P
I mainly don't tell people because the second i do 9 out of 10 times they adopt a assuming predudice attitude where everything i do or say automatically becomes wrong in their eyes, then soon after i cannot even so much even go to the toilet without copping some bs about it being immorral.

Actually, I think you're wrong about the full meaning of the term Agnostic, but I don't really care, nor am I really sure.

Fully open to being corrected if so. Hate being wrong :)

Awesome, while looking up Agnosticism on the great bringer of unverified information, I found a label to apply to myself. How comforting. Apparently my view on things comes closest to Apathetic agnosticism. But going on the list of types of agnosticism on wikipedia, at least Strong, weak and apathetic agnosticism have no religious view next to it. Agnostic atheism and Agnostic theism do, obviously. So while agnosticism can be combined with a religious viewpoint, this is in no way a necessary aspect of the term 'Agnosticism' per se. At least, according to wikipedia :)

Apatheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheist

That's the first time I've heard of that term. Cool.
Normally, I considered myself as an atheist.
I think Apatheist best describe me.

Reading through some of the replies in this thread, I think that some should look into ignosticism.

Yes, Steve Jobs says it will revolutionise the way we think about our place in the universe. No Flash though.

I chortled. But I actually meant ignoticism.

Not at all. You didn't fail to communicate, you have failed to come up with the same conclusion. Nuance. And I'm sorry, but that doesn't prevent people from having a conversation. So what, we don't think alike, so we are unable to communicate ?

I am an Existentialist (Sartre flavor). While not technically a religion or faith, it sums up my philosophy of a higher power and my relationship with the world. In summary, I don't care whether or not there is a God, as I don't think the existence of a God would impact me one way or the other. If there is a God, he chooses not to partake in human affairs, so I must live my life according to to my own moral compass, always striving to be truthful with myself about my own motivations and choices.
I do find it fun to debate the Bible with folks though. I went to an Episcopal school from age 6 to 18, where daily chapel was mandatory (first 30 minutes of the day) and where I had a religious studies class at least once a week (it was daily in Middle School, I suppose they figured adolescents needed religion, heh). I know a little bit more about most things Biblical than most people who claim they are 'Christians'.

If the ideas you are trying to put forth are not mirrored by the ideas the person you're speaking to thinks you're putting forth, then yes, that pretty much defines a failure of communication. As for still being able to have a conversation, when the entirety of that conversation consists of a discussion of semantics to cover for your original inability to communicate, I think you'll find that a lot of people will decide to simply stop speaking with you and walk away. Kind of like I'm going to do right now.
Ooh, nifty. For the most part I'm an existentialist of the same flavor myself, although I tend to prefer Camus' framing of some of the ideas over Sartre's.

I'm pretty much agnostic, but I was studying Shinto a few years ago.