This is why I find it hilarious and quite childish when some adopt the position of God does not exist, because there isn't any evidence for him. That is so fucking childish (granted one should not use the God of the Gaps argument to then try to say God exists where we lack understanding no) but just because we might not have evidence for something for the moment does not mean that it does not exist, that is an assumption, it's basically the legal doctrine, i.e. the assumption the person is innocent until proven guilty, sometimes there are some abstract truths which can never be shown to be true.
So I can't to get everyone elses position on this, how do you guys define yourself and to you even think about it much? do you think about your position being wrong?
I think u haven't converted, I think u got confused, I was not aware that reasonable atheists claimed God does not Exist, that is not what an Atheist is, an Atheist is someone who does not BELIEVE in God or someone who hasn't seen yet enough evidence or proof for God, what u talking about is GNOSTIC ATHEISM, what u talking about is Atheists who claim to have knowledge that God does not exist.
All this Ignostic thing seems like a bunch of dishonesty to me.
After reading ur post I realized that by Ignosticism u meant Agnostic Atheism, Agnosticism by no way refers to belief, when it comes to belief u either believe or don't, people who identify themselves as Agnostics in terms of Belief are being dishonest to themselves, Agnosticism has to do with knowledge not belief, u can be an Agnostic Theist who says I believe in God but I don't know if he exists or not or an Agnostic Atheist who claims to not believe in God and has no knowledge whether a God or diety exists or not.