Reply #104: That doesn't make sense from a logical or scientific point of view.

[ContinentalOp]

If I have no evidence for a particular claim and plenty of evidence that disproves it, then I have to assume that the claim is false. If solid evidence later surfaces and proves the claim correct, then I can simply change my stance on the issue. There's really no reason to be "agnostic" about it. I suppose it's a little more polite to say "gee, I don't know about your wild claim so I'll just refrain from judgement" but other than that it really serves no purpose.

But this just becomes one big semantic tangle about what agnostic means, what belief means, and what God means. I'm agnostic in the sense that I believe there are some questions for which we will never know the answer and in fact simply cannot know the answer. And that is really a "belief" in the sense that I just take it on faith that there are mysteries we will never be able to comprehend. But when I say god doesn't exist (at least the Christian definition of "God"), that's not a "belief", it's just a logical conclusion based on the available evidence. It's not an act of faith or a strongly held conviction that transcends logical proof. If you showed me some solid evidence for the existence of God I could easily flip flop on the issue.