Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

Because the definition of atheism (whichever one it is) makes bugger all sense ... the agnostic is simply a sit-on-the-fence atheist IMO. I've posted before about it and we've disagreed (well there's a surprise). Combining the straight-forward concept of atheism with the crap that is agnosticism (at least as far as the two definitions of which I am aware) is bullshit hence "wishy-washy").

Indeed, we disagreed with it before, and you chickened out of an actual response to my points. Perhaps it's time for a response? Of course you consider agnosticism crap, because your agnosticism is to the real agnosticism what creationist's "evolution" is to the real theory of evolution. It's a confused and illogical version, whereas the actual position makes sense. Agnosticism says we can never really prove or disprove God. I put to you that God is unprovable because the attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are untestable unless the tester is also omniscient (and therefore knows about the validity of the claimant's three attributes). I also call in Shermer's Last Law, that "Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God". Given any powerful being, you could not prove that such a being was god anymore than you could prove it was just a very powerful and technologically advanced alien. [Shermer's Last Law]

I don't think agnosticism is a valid position so as far as I'm concerned it is purely between theism and atheism.

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.