Quote Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Not sure if this has been said before, but you are agnositc, same as I am. Agnostic's feel they do not have enough information on the matter to make a decision one way or another. Athiest feel they have enough information to declare that there isn't a god.

Just clearing that up, because there is a distinct difference between agnositc and athiest.
They are not mutually exclusive terms. I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know for sure that there is no God (just as I don't know any fact for sure; I'm always open to new evidence that could change my mind), so technically that makes me an agnostic. I also happen to not hold a positive belief in a God, which makes me an atheist.

It is a common misconception that atheism means you have 100% proof there is no God. That certainly isn't the case. Most atheists that I know are more rational than that, and will admit that when you look at any idea from a scientific perspective you can't claim to have absolute proof of anything. But just because you don't have absolute proof doesn't mean you can't reach tentative conclusions that you're pretty damn sure about. I can't prove 100% that unicorns don't exist, so technically I'm a unicorn agnostic, but I am still a unicorn atheist because I don't hold a positive belief in unicorns.

"Gnosticism" and "agnosticism" refer to whether or not one claims to know for sure the existence/non-existence of God, whereas "theism" and "atheism" refer to whether or not one holds a belief in a God. There are agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists and gnostic theists. You too are an agnostic atheist, if I understand your position correctly, since you do not hold a belief in a God and do not claim absolute knowledge one way or the other.

If we disagree anywhere, it's on the relative probabilities of the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist". I personally don't think the two are equally likely to be true. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the first statement is false.