Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Mister Agenda]

The thread is not about proving god again, it's about taking the most honest position. Suspending judgement is not honest when it comes to the claim of an all-powerful all knowing just deity. The latter either revealed itself or doesn't exist. There is not midpoint here.

You are correct that the question is binary, that there is no midpoint between 'at least one god of some kind exists' and 'no god of any kind exists'. However, there being only two options does not mean you have to select one as your position. If you don't know which is true, it's perfectly honest to say you don't know which one is true, which is what an agnostic is saying when they describe themselves as an agnostic. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't know which one is true, and I don't believe the god option is true. I don't believe the 'no god' option is true either; but I personally assign it a high probability because I think it's more likely to be true. It's like placing odds on a boxing match, you don't know which fighter is going to win, but you have an opinion based on the information available to you which is more likely to win. But you don't KNOW.

---

1. It's just an example. A person may have a 95% probability that god exists. Is he an atheist?

The person is an atheist if they don't believe any gods are real despite putting the odds at 95% that one is; but if I were setting odds, I'd say that's more likely to be an agnostic theist who believes there's at least one real deity while presenting an estimated level of doubt. The person probably knows roughly how certain they are that a god exists (or doesn't).