Here's my take on it.
Agnosticism is illogical and refutes itself. Agnosticism and agnostics characterize God as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible to all attempts to understand him. This doctrine is self-refuting. The agnostic is making a knowledge claim about what he/she claims is unknowable. How do agnostics know that God is unknowable if he is unknowable ? How do they even know that God's existence cannot be disproved if God is unknowable, or that God even exists if he is unknowable ? To claim any attribute for God is knowledge and claims to know this unknowable God possesses certain attributes. That's a logical contradiction, and any being containing two incompatible attributes cannot possibly exist. So one need not resort to agnosticism. He/she would be justified in not believing in that God if the concept of it contradicts itself in any way. One is justified in accepting and adopting the atheist position.
What seems to make more sense is Neil deGrass Tyson's position which he has referred to as "weak agnosticism" or "empirical agnosticism" which does not say that it is impossible to know whether a God or Gods exist, but perhaps one day, it may be possible to know, it's just simply we do not know currently.
So, the empirical agnostic says that currently we do not know, but perhaps one day we can know. That, to me, seems more intellectually honest a position than any other stance.
That's about where I'm at Matt.
It makes no sense to me when somebody says 'There is probably no god' because this can also mean that there is probably a god. This does not convey any solid message. It is better not to say anything if you have nothing really to say. If you are unable to resolve your doubt then you better remain a believer and refrain from unnecessarily causing a confusion in others mind. A prayer like 'Oh god, if there is a god, save me if I can be saved' is unlikely to be answered by the god himself! If you know that your prayer is not likely to be answered, be an atheist. You have nothing to loose.