Incohorent babble. Agnosticism has no intellectual basis. It is simply someone who hasn't made up their mind. It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not. You either believe Jesus rose from the dead or you do not. You either believe Muhhamad spoke to the angel Gabriel or you do not.
You made a silly point and I destroyed it. No need to cry.
Some wild assumptions here.
A/gnosticism, whilst often used completely out of context, does have an intellectual basis in describing your
epistemic stance in reply to a proposition. It need not have a purely religious basis (I could be agnostic about the existence of "true love"), whereas "atheism" as a label is contingent to the religious argument.
Let me explain: If the "god" proposition had never been posited, it would not make sense (nor be possible) to be an atheist- "I don't believe in your god" is nonsensical. Atheism exists only in response to theism.
Having said that, you can extend the broad premise of
weak atheism to other areas and simply call it skepticism. This is generally the position that defines most modern "atheists" (though I'm careful to make many generalisations). The general position would be:
Let god be X:
I'm not satisfied that you have produced any credible evidence to support the existence of entity X, hence until such suffices, I will reject your claim and stay neutral to its existence. This involves by necessity not adapting a "belief" here.
This is a logical position, yet it can be taken to extreme cases where you would assert that entity X
does not exist through a variety of proofs (rational or empirical) [strong atheism]. This position, like theism is not considered viable (as of yet), but may be considered
more probable then its counterpart (theism) among many. However, such inductive logic can have dangers as Hume reminds us in a
A Treatise Of Human Nature, in regards to certainty concerning the rising of the morning sun. Whilst such a belief may be pragmatic, we must accept that engaging in inductive generalisation requires we hold an indispensable belief which itself, must remain in an important way ungrounded.
Now returning to agnosticism (a stance on
what we can
know), a weak atheist can well be an agnostic yet not the later. Agnosticism is a highly credible position if you reach the conclusion that given all form of logic we know, I'm unsatisfied that a final "proof" will be reached in either direction. I will be silent on final
certainty, but within the realm of logic/reasoning I am still justfied in being skeptical over some propositions to the other.
Being a theistic agnostic is equally possible (but we would need to delve into degrees of "theism", much like the weak/strong atheistic split).
From the positions given, you sound like a gnostic strong atheist.