So after a lot of studying based on Wammy's comments that Agnosticism wasn't what I believed it to be, I delved into the depths of the subject, studying all definitions and extensions of atheism and agnosticism.

I would probably be closest to a weak agnostic. This could be seen as implicit atheism, but I find that Agnosticism is something a better identify with based on it's context despite only being a weak one.

More because I find our futures unknowable. We can't make sure assumptions based off nothing like that we'll never be able to know if god exists. I mostly believe in the fact that a god can or cannot exist, not the proof surrounding it. On this I still think we can speculate based on what we'd need to have to know if god exists, or look at past/possible proof. And even then who knows we might not be able to tell, but most likely in the sense we can't tell anything. I can't tell if you're really lying in a statement, just if I think you are or perceive you are. But no one thinks based on that because it ruins argument and sense, and holds the low chance of something being wrong/right as a reason to say you can't know for sure. And while that's true in definition we all but know things are true or at least close to true. On that even if god turns out to exist, I still might not believe it wholly because of the unclear view of reality as we know it's existence. In the end there is a reality. By definition there is. Even if the universe is in flux and everything is not what we think and we're just one of millions of constantly changing streams or whatever it still qualifies as reality. But my questioning whether our reality is true and choosing not to wholly believe in it makes a stance.

Now technically atheism is not believing in a god. On this atheism doesn't deny that god could exist only that they don't believe in it. Hard Explicit atheism DOES say god doesn't exist. But this is my belief so we're not going into that. Instead I'll tell you why I don't identify as an implicit atheist. Implicit atheism is very similar to agnosticism. It basically says they "don't believe in god, but don't reject it". This is exactly what popular agnosticism is. But I don't not believe in god. I'm not in a state of questioning as most in that situation. They are atheists at that point in the basic sense that they don't believe in it. Simple explicit atheism is an extension of this that has rejected it but not dismissed it. I find myself not as an atheist unbelieving but as an agnostic questioning the matter. In a way I'm in a state of mind not really a belief. But by definition it is a belief. And I choose to be a weak atheist because I don't believe we can say for sure proof on religion is one way or another. There will always be some level of doubt, but most agnostics support a huge doubt not a small one. And in the situation that we were able to scientifically verify proof from a god that they created everything(easy with their power if they want to give us something like that) then there wouldn't be much argument. But we can't say for sure either way and I stand by being a weak agnostic.

Expanding on my views a little. In principle I'm almost Nihilistic. I don't believe in life having meaning although I could accept it having one. I feel any that are made would either be on how science works, opinion, or human standards and would probably be untrue. Also In my question of whether the reality we perceive is real my deepest beliefs are near nihilistic, although I don't live by them as they ruin other thought. In questioning it I disregard belief of it and therefore lose belief. And in that sense I could be said to be nihilistic at heart. On the other hand I don't fully believe in disbelief, and my beliefs in things like life being meaningless in nature could be changed. What if meaning became relative? What if things could have meaning and purpose created through the process of life or life altogether? I don't dismiss these things, but at the moment they aren't substantial enough and by the definition of a greater meaning or purpose not decided by us but by life, a creator or something else I don't believe in one. I'm not saying it can't exist and maybe we'll find it. But for now I don't see it. On that I don't find happiness or sadness in it. Just knowledge. This is principle not practice.

In practice I don't really identify. I'm a logical free thinker who acts on science and is willing to discuss beliefs but not to hold them against others. I guess in practice I can't really know what I am, as I have a mix of real emotions and manufactured ones to the point that I can't tell the difference. And my actual stances on issues are usually logical and moral with respect to common opinion. Which is weird, as I differ in so many ways.

There's also some expanding on me never thinking that I am right, or that my beliefs are right, only that I believe them or believe in them. Same goes for everything about me.

Great thoughts to start out with, I think it's good that you're thinking. I like to assume that Judaism is a correct religion and think about it like this: that God showed Himself to Israel way back when they made their own state/nation. And it resembles a dog, that if we find a dog that doesn't know where he is or what he is doing usually he is acting aggressive out of insecurity. We leash him and prove that he is under protection and we build this bond of trust, so that even when we release the leash (Diaspora of Israel) the dog still trusts us and he still listens to us.
Also to go off what u said about subjective reality. I believe that reality and truth (if God doesn't exist) are all relative and go off on Einstein's laws, for example we don't all agree on what is good and bad. But once God is put into the picture (assuming this God is the God of worship that is all good and all knowing and all powerful and eternal and created us) we can understand that He can watch everything in an objective way, even see our dreams that we don't remember.

and in order for the multi universe theory to be correct, which the best theory is called the antropic principle which states "out of all the infinite possiblities of universes, this one exists because we observe it" . and a counter to this is that in order for universes to exist or existense to exist or observations to exist it has to be observed by this Eternal Being. becasue there are infinite possiblities when we map out the constants in physical laws. a big problem with what most philosophers think that aren't physicists is that it is a 1 out of 10^100 chance or some finite number which is only right when talking about universes that escape the singularity, but when talking about existenses of a physical universe that abides by physical law it truly is a 1 in an infinite chance of any physical universe existing in general becasue there can be infinite singularities if a constant like gravity being 9.8 m/s^2 is beyond a certain number compared to the other constants