Agnosticism: Human Nature or Skeptical?

Which is more practical? Is it more rational to believe that there's no God or be rest content that " no proof for his existence isn't proof for his nonexistence"! Some people attack the agnostic point of view towards religions because they think not having evidence or enough evidence to prove that there's a God is good enough reason to say that there isn't one while others think their stand is somewhat cowardly (for lack of a better word) since they remain open-minded and sort of middle ground between atheism and theism. In addition, the agnostic position to others is just a skeptic's approach to religion and the debate over the existence of a God or not. Personally, i think the agnostic position is more than just being a skeptic or a "coward" not being able to make up their mind as to which direction they'll take. Who said they have to be atheist or theist? They have already made up their mind and taking the stand that they would prefer more evidence in either direction before drawing a conclusion. I mean isn't that what we all do? isn't that what statistics and researchers do when they never say we reject a hypotheses thus accept the alternative. Better yet isn't that what we do on a daily basis when we don't believe things we can't comprehend at first mention because we would like more evidence. Atleast the agnostic is open-minded and ready to learn from evidence and not an atheist in disguise or as some think just on a middle ground so they can go either way and not be necessarily held to their previous convictions.