To an atheist, the statement "a small pink elephant named wilson created the universe with a squeeky sneeze" and "God created the universe in 7 days" are equally likely to be true...
An atheist may not assign a probability of 1 to the truth of each of his/her beliefs, but he/she considers all absurd beliefs equally unlikely, and grants that science has allowed humanity to make educated estimates about many such probabilities.
Ok, an agnostic is more likely to say I have no idea what the odds of a god are nor is there anyway to determine them.
PS: Let's say our universe was created by Ted. And you ask him, who created your universe and he says "I have no idea".
I think of agnosticism as saying "I am not capable of knowing", whereas atheists say "Sure none of my beliefs have a 100% probability of being true, but as a human I need to use what provisional knowledge I have in a meaningful way."
In other words, evidence is worth more to atheists than it is to agnostics, who (in spite of evidence) still focus on their inability to know for sure.
I think we're having the "strong/weak atheism/agnosticism" debate... I happen to consider myself an atheist b/c I act as though I believe there is no god just as I act like my laptop is not on fire when I type this.... and it works.
