I have seen this argument play out so many times it's not funny. Technically a person who does not believe in any gods is an atheist. That is the definition. You are either "theist", having belief, or "atheist", not having belief. But that's a technicality. Some people prefer to identify as "agnostic" instead for whatever reason. They don't like to be called an "atheist". Personally, I'm okay with that. When someone says, "I'm agnostic" I have a pretty good idea what they mean. I understand what they're saying to me and I do not feel the need to shoehorn them into a label they are not comfortable with, even if it is technically accurate. We forget sometimes that "agnostic" is a word too, and also has a definition which the claimant is properly using, so there is really no need for a correction of a statement which is already accurate.
That being said, agnosticism is very much not the "most logical position". No, there is no evidence that no gods exist and never will be because it would be impossible for something which doesn't exist to leave behind evidence that it doesn't exist. If your position is "If you can't prove it's wrong then the most logical thing is to believe it might be right", that really doesn't work in the real world. Are you also agnostic about fairies and trolls? What about unicorns? Many people have claimed to have astounding psychic powers, but every one ever tested under controlled scientific conditions has utterly failed to produce a positive result. There is no evidence that psychic powers are not real and there is no evidence that they are real. By that logic one should be agnostic about the existence of psychic powers. But when you look at it realistically that position just doesn't make sense. On the one side you have many, many claims of psychic powers and on the other side you have many, many tests producing no positive results and zero tests producing positive results. The same could be said about the existence of gods. On the one side you have claims, on the other side all of those claims which weren't too vague to be tested and which have been tested have failed to produce positive results. To say that being agnostic about it is the most "logical" position is to say that claims are equivalent to scientific testing which does not produce positive results. Anyone can make a claim. No credibility is required. And all false claims tested fail to produce positive results. It could be no other way since they are "false". A "claim" should be suspect to begin with, especially one concerning fantastical magical beings. And if no evidence can be found to support that claim the "most logical" thing to do is to dismiss that claim.
It is only because we are trained to believe in magical beings from childhood that we even feel that we need to entertain these silly ideas at all. Imagine you had never heard of or even imagined any gods. The thought that there might be some magical creator being has never crossed your mind. Now, as an adult, someone tells you that there is a magical being responsible for the existence of everything. You would find this idea to be ludicrous. You wouldn't give it a second thought. It is not only just a claim, it is a ridiculous claim. The claimant is asking that you believe in magic; that you believe that the laws of physics to not apply except when the claimant wants them to apply (as in the "first cause" argument, where the laws of physics are absolute and unbreakable...except when they're not). If we were not trained from childhood to entertain this magical thinking we would all dismiss it outright as nonsense. This is exactly why Christians in America are so desperate to get magic back into the public schools so that all the little children are trained from an early age to believe it's possible.
That being said, agnosticism is very much not the "most logical position". No, there is no evidence that no gods exist and never will be because it would be impossible for something which doesn't exist to leave behind evidence that it doesn't exist. If your position is "If you can't prove it's wrong then the most logical thing is to believe it might be right", that really doesn't work in the real world. Are you also agnostic about fairies and trolls? What about unicorns? Many people have claimed to have astounding psychic powers, but every one ever tested under controlled scientific conditions has utterly failed to produce a positive result. There is no evidence that psychic powers are not real and there is no evidence that they are real. By that logic one should be agnostic about the existence of psychic powers. But when you look at it realistically that position just doesn't make sense. On the one side you have many, many claims of psychic powers and on the other side you have many, many tests producing no positive results and zero tests producing positive results. The same could be said about the existence of gods. On the one side you have claims, on the other side all of those claims which weren't too vague to be tested and which have been tested have failed to produce positive results. To say that being agnostic about it is the most "logical" position is to say that claims are equivalent to scientific testing which does not produce positive results. Anyone can make a claim. No credibility is required. And all false claims tested fail to produce positive results. It could be no other way since they are "false". A "claim" should be suspect to begin with, especially one concerning fantastical magical beings. And if no evidence can be found to support that claim the "most logical" thing to do is to dismiss that claim.
It is only because we are trained to believe in magical beings from childhood that we even feel that we need to entertain these silly ideas at all. Imagine you had never heard of or even imagined any gods. The thought that there might be some magical creator being has never crossed your mind. Now, as an adult, someone tells you that there is a magical being responsible for the existence of everything. You would find this idea to be ludicrous. You wouldn't give it a second thought. It is not only just a claim, it is a ridiculous claim. The claimant is asking that you believe in magic; that you believe that the laws of physics to not apply except when the claimant wants them to apply (as in the "first cause" argument, where the laws of physics are absolute and unbreakable...except when they're not). If we were not trained from childhood to entertain this magical thinking we would all dismiss it outright as nonsense. This is exactly why Christians in America are so desperate to get magic back into the public schools so that all the little children are trained from an early age to believe it's possible.
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately? Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers?
Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use. Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel. Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
