Why would we reject null?

There is no proof. Does it matter which side it is on?

I can be called agnostic or atheist. I can even be an agnostic atheist. This is because I do not believe but I cannot take it so far as to claim evidence and take on a burden of proof.

it is interesting to note that people are people no matter how they label themselves, nor does it really matter! how do you fool yourself?

What does "reject the null" mean? If null is "nothing," then rejecting it would be accepting the existent. So if both sides fail to reject the null, then they're both accepting the existent? Can you clarify what your last sentence means?

Schrodinger's agnostic.

A = without; gnosis = knowledge. Agnosticism regarding deities is a knowledge position, not a belief position. It is the notion that no supportable knowledge claim can be made for OR against the existence of god. In the limited sense that it's about a knowledge claim rather than a belief claim, it's "about neither believing or disbelieving" but I don't think that's a helpful way to conceptualize it, and misses the point of agnosticism.

Supernatural beings and realms cannot be known because they are un-falsifiable hypotheses, not because they are not believable Although it's also true that gods are not believable, that's a question that is answered by atheism, not agnosticism. Or more exactly, it's a question that's addressed with critical thinking and skepticism, with atheism as the result of that.

Null would be disbelief. There can't be an in between the two there. You can't sorta believe something, you either do or you don't.

I did it for the points. Woohoo.