Agnostic: a pointless term?

[bennyboy]

Coming from a scientific background, the default position is disbelief, and then when you have enough evidence to convince you, you start believing. Just because a hypothesis is illl defined or completely untestable, doesn't mean I should change my disbelief stance. This is what I understand as Atheism.

To me, the default position is ignorance. Then, someone formulates a problem and puts it to you, and you take a position based on what information you've collected. If I ask you "Do you believe in bubuons?" are you more likely to declare that you lack that belief, or simply to ask for the question to be resolved: "Bubuons? What are those?"

I think there are many forces, and possibly even entities, in the universe so grand relative to humans that we'd be willing to call them gods. There are experiences so powerful that the choice of whether to call them "religious" is more semantics than anything else-- certainly, some of us here have had experiences that others would call religious. I've also heard morons talk about Sky Daddy, or think that because they won a raffle, they "knew" God was looking over them. So if you ask "Do you believe in God," the answer is yes/no/maybe. But, to me, that inability to resolve a question into a single answer is a good reason to take the position that I simply do not know the answer.