I am an agnostic atheist. I am close to finishing my college degree in IT and I have fairly extensive understanding in most of the relevant fields of science. However, I recognize that atheists lack a burden of proof, that my position is entirely justified based on the absence of sufficient evidence for gods. I remain agnostic, depending on how one defines 'knowledge.' If absolute certainty is not necessary to qualify as knowledge, then I am a gnostic atheist. If someone were to assert that absolute certainty is not only obtainable (which I reject), but is necessary to state that someone 'knows' a fact, then I am an agnostic under that definition. I opt for a definition of knowledge that makes it a high degree of certainty. That is, to the extent that I know no god exists I also know unicorns don't exist. Is it possible that I am wrong? Sure. But it would take extraordinary evidence to make me change my mind at this point.