In other words, an agnostic shuts his mind down to the evidence which is not difficult to understand at all. An agnostic is really a cynic, thus allowing for anything to be God which is quite unreasonable a view to take because of the evidence for God. Most skeptical scholars at least accept some things:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

So you can't call yourself a skeptic technically speaking.

It is not incumbent on anyone to assume anything is true. That is a fallacy for you to assume that people should assume anything. Whether you are taught something or not, don't assume. Those should be words to live by. Choosing not to follow a teaching first by assuming God does not exist is quite untenable, because it is an assumption rather than considering what the evidence points to.

Also, you make yet another mistake. Step 3 of the Proof says don't argue against some god, for we are talking about God of the Bible. Small g is some god; it is not the name of God of the Bible. So while you argue against some god, it has no bearing on any attempt of disproof against God of the Bible.