Agnosticism as a qualitative label isn't very useful.
Technically, every rational person could be defaulted into the category on the basis of some level of doubt.
What's interesting is the level of doubt. For a rational person this will be in accordance to the evidence for X. (God in this instance)
For example... I find the evidence for the likelihood of a theistic, as biblically depicted, God to be extraordinarily lacking. Basically... no good evidence at all. And so I'm defaulted into extreme skepticism. Say 99.9% confident based upon available evidence that there is no theistic God.
No, nobody can be *perfectly* sure, but that's not saying anything interesting, is it? We could posit infinite unlikely scenario in which we're not able to definitively exclude the possibility of X. But you don't worry about those low probability items, do you? I just add one more (God) to the list than you.
And so... Paschal's wager and other such thought experiments don't really go anywhere with such extreme skepticism.
(which I believe to be reasonably derived from lack of evidence)
There's tons of evidence for Jesus, though.
I'm 100% certain He was and is real.