Atheist or Agnostic?

[robvalue]

That's what makes me so annoyingly smug about being an atheist, making no claims, I have no burden of proof and I can't actually be wrong.

I see, so you make neither the claim that God (such as, say, the God of classical theism) exists, nor that God does not exist.

Would you then try to show the flaws in the arguments of other people both attempting to show that God exists and to show that God on the contrary does not exist?

Are you fair in your choice of targets to shoot down?

I'll give you credit for this, you've accepted advice and shown an understanding of the atheist position that some people simply can't/won't.

Anyone making a positive claim, if they want me to believe them, has a burden of proof, yes. That burden depends in the claim; the more extaordinary it is, the more evidence is usually required. And claims of knowledge would typically demand more evidence than those of belief, to be convincing. 

A belief in the lack of gods is a far more realistic claim than the belief in gods, in my opinion. The total absence of any evidence of gods, combined with the knowledge of all the previous man made gods, make it a claim in tune with reality. To believe in God when there is no evidence seems irrational to me.