@Frank Apisa,
Hand held out yawing so so.
I see it has been established that you have claimed to be morally superior, intellectually superior, logically superior and just plain superior to the other two sides on certain occasions and have denied claiming all those as well.
It seems to me that the god you have no evidence for, or no evidence against, existing is not the same god as either the one theists or deists believe in or the one atheists don't believe in. You make a guess about god from which you derive your moral, intellectual and logical superiority over either side. That's convenient.
I think you might have an infinite regress on your hands. You really ought to be agnostic about your guess. Which involves another guess. And so on. What evidence have you that you have no evidence on which to decide the issue.
A feral individual is in the same position. Any evidence for or against would be apparent to a feral. But a feral faced with no evidence either way would not have the god concept and thus would not discuss it with himself. So the fact that you are discussing it means you have the god concept and thus god exists as a material object in your brain assuming you think that there is no evidence for immaterial objects.
It's a social thing Frank. You like arguing and you have more people to argue with as an agnostic.
You are in a lifeboat with others. Middle of an ocean. Thick mist. None of you have any evidence to decide which direction to row in. Do you accept the result of a coin toss to decide or do you say you are not rowing because you have no evidence to decide which direction.
I'm going to the pub now otherwise I would have padded that out with some local colour and given it an atmosphere. It's the sort of thing philosophers dream up in order to orient their thoughts.