I agree with several of your points. As far as your comment that atheists and agnostics are the same–I would say they are similar. The only difference, in my experience, is that atheists are usually more willing to take a stand on matters of religion, whereas agnostics are usually more willing to let things go. I once considered myself an agnostic, but I switched to atheist once I decided that evidence was the most important thing to me. Still, the differences are minimal; this is why I fail to undertand why some theists waste their time arguing that atheists are really agnostics are disguise. Seem like semantics to me.

As far as going looking for god, I also agree that god’s existence is an important subject to examine. I spend a great deal of time researching different religions, trying to see things from their point of view. I often come across Christians, is particular, who claim they can “prove” that god exists. I always eagerly check out what they have to say, but so far I have been dissapointed.

When you say you promise that I will “find Him,” I’m curious about what you mean. Will I find evidence, or will I just feel his presence? Unfortunately, feeling his presence wouldn’t be enough for me, at this point. I was raised Catholic myself, and I can say that I did genuinely believe in god for a long time (although I was never a “true Christian” by evangelical standards, but that’s another story). However, the warm feelings I had for god turned out to be very similar to the warm feelings I had for, say, Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse (both of which I beleived to really exist at some point). The great scientists saught (and still seek) observable, repeatable evidence before a hypothesis can become a law or even a theory. In my opinion, the god hypothesis should not be exempted from those requirements.