My conclusions about weak Atheism.

[Edwardo Piet]

 I reject both claims of "there is a god(s)" and "there isn't a god(s)" because I don't think either claim has met its burden of proof. 

But I take it you don't think that God is not improbable?

There's a difference between "There isn't a god" and "I know there isn't a god." It's not like you think the probability is unknown or 50%... I think it would be incredibly misleading to say you don't think that there aren't any gods, unless you really think that there's as much chance that they exist as not exist (indeed, agnosticism refers to the unknowability of gods, but many people colloquially refer themselves as "agnostic" to mean they have no idea how probable or improbable gods are, and that they could just as easily exist as not exist, so when you are so unwilling to say there isn't a god, but you're perfectly willing to say there isn't any ghosts, it kind of makes you look like those naive people who mistakenly think that agnosticism means god is as likely to exist as not exist. We feel no need to qualify statements such as "ghosts don't exist" or "the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist" with further statements "But I'm not claiming to know that to an absolute certainty!". Duh, you can't prove a negative, but that applies to everything, not just gods, and I don't see why gods should get special treatment and require more qualifiers when they're just as silly as anything else that there's absolutely no evidence of. If not sillier.).