I agree that proof shouldn't enter into it (I believe it was Kierkegaard who said that a Christian needs to believe in God precisely BECAUSE His existence cannot be proven, or something to that effect).
And consequently, I call myself an agnostic because I cannot find enough... consistence in the world for me to believe in either one or the other. There's too much wonders in the world for me to say "All I believe is what I can see with my own senses", yet too much stupidity and cruelty for me to believe that there is any intelligence behind it. And so, I remain on the fence, unable to exclude either alternative. (Which is a very blunt way of explaining an process of thought which for me is in its third decade by now, but...)
