Agnostic: a pointless term?

[Pizza]

First off, I think arguments over definitions are silly. Words like atheist and agnostic have never been clearly and unambiguously. Arguments over who counts as atheists or agnostics are mere verbal disputes and are pointless wankery. I love that word: wankery. Teeheeheh.

ManMachine post sparked my interest.

Agnosticism is the only scientifically valid position you can arrive at. It is a fallacy that asserting gods do not exist is somehow better than asserting they do as there is an absence of evidence either way.

Argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy meaning there is nothing wrong with the form of the argument and there are always exceptions to the rule of thumb. If you have good reasons to think there would be evidence for something, you look, and don't find it then it's okay to go with a low unlikelihood. If someone claims, "there's an plain old elephant in the room," and I don't see one then I'm calling shenanigans.
I think most people asserting gods do not exist are just going with the null hypothesis and an informal application of occam's razor. Really I don't see a point in splitting hairs on words like "know." All "strong atheists" (I hate this term by the way) are saying is that the likelihood is low.

Personally I am happy to acknowledge that my assertion there is no god is a leap of faith, I am content that scientific endeavour is my system of belief, I have no problem with that at all. I find it really odd and counter intuitive that other people do have a problem with it.

It really boils down to what you mean by 'leap of faith.' I'm guessing you mean the following: "leap of faith, an act or instance of accepting or trusting in something that cannot readily be seen or proved." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/l...of%20faith

I don't have a problem with this. Since we have to just go along with axioms and other times have to pick arbitrary stopping points so not to get dragged into a bottomless pit of arguments.