>The term “agnostic” to me means a person who does not believe in the existence or non-existence of God. An “atheist” is one who does not believe in the existence of God. No one can “prove” the existence or non-existence of God. Those that believe have faith. Those that do not believe fit into one of the other categories defined previously.

Close. Agnostic means we have no knowledge of or enough informatiom to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It is close to atheist. But I think it's more realistic and fair. As an atheist I can say there are no gods. But can I prove it? No. Neither I can prove the opposite. Therefore, agnostic. Now, even for agnostics, the currently available evidence is pointing heavily towards non-existance.



>You cannot convince anyone of the existence or non-existence of God by any human means. To do so is an insult to another person’s intelligence and will only lead to argument and conjecture. One either accepts or dismisses the premise, except for the “agnostic”, who is “unsure”. Better to hedge your bets if you are a gambling person! :)

Just remember Arthur Clarke's words: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". In you were transported back to ancient times, given today's knowledge and technology, almost any gadget you could demonstrate could label you as a deity with supernatural powers. Does that prove you are a God? No.
But they would believe it.