The problem with Agnosticism?

Question

Agnostics often wrongly reprimand Atheists because they say God can neither be proved nor disproved.
There's a fundamental flaw in this argument. Like any question, the existence of God should be viewed as a "balance of evidence" question.
Since the balance of evidence is firmly in the Atheists favour (i.e nothing we know of can be reasonably attributed to god) then Atheism is the most logical belief.
Substitute the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause for God and you will see why a balance of evidence is important. We cannot disprove their existence either.

Lee Harvey : By that reasoning we should believe anything we cannot fully disprove (Toothfairy argument)

Deamonsae: Every point you made is invalid
Santa Clause was not invented by coca cola - urban legend (see www.snopes.com)
Every major religion's creation is well documented, just as Santa Clauese is.
Few great scientific minds are religious - 90% of the Royal Society (Britains top scientists) are atheists. This decreases to about 10% for the general population.
We don't know yet what caused the big bang, although there are theories. To attribute it to God is similar to attributing the sunrise or plant growth to God as they did in the Middle Ages.
We do actually know what began the process of evolution. The correct combination of light and chemicals will allow bacteria to grow. Then the fittest survive and so on. It's how we check for life on other planets.
You cannot automatically attribute gaps in scientific knowledge to God. Science is an ongoing process and there will be gaps for a long time, getting ever smaller, giving God fewer places to hide.

Answer 1

There a lot more to agnostics than you described.

Both views are pointless and cold though.

Stick with Jesus, you can't go wrong.

Answer 2

To begin with Coca-Cola invented Santa Claus as we know him today, so I'm afraid there is your answer to that. The tooth fairy also is a well documented creation of humans that adults understand. To compare those of great intelligence within religious or faith groups is a testament to the lack of thought of the argument and an assumption that no one of intelligence can have faith. This is simply not true and many great minds have a faith that runs alongside their scientific job.

Actually where is the atheist 'Proof' that god does not exist?
Is it in the big bang? where there is absolutely no evidence for what caused it
Is it in Evolution? where there is no proof for what started the process or put the rules into place.
Is it in the absence of what they can see? Just like the word Atom means the smallest because it was assumed that they had found just that the smallest particle yet scientist have discovered the sub-atomic world, which runs on an odd rule of chaos. How the hell did all this complexity and balance come about?
It appears that the faith in the existence of no god requires as many leaps of faith as any religion and the questioner does indeed refeer to atheism as a belief system. This leads to the conclusion that atheism like all major faiths over the last 2000 years is also claiming exclusive truth. What will we see next the first anti-religious wars and executions for not disbelieveing in a god (or did that already happen in communism?)
Although i am not agnostic it appears that this is the most logical conclusion to come to when examining the evidence. As nothing we know of can equally prove or disprove the evidence so therefore 'dont know'

There is no point answering your question, like a christian fundermentalist who would accuse me of worshipping satan because I am pagan you cannot see acknowledge that something slightly different maybe someone elses personal truth. This appears to lead to fear and so to insults, it is such a shame, you of the God of Abraham, muslim, christian, jewish and athiest can fight over who sees him correctly for the rest of eternity i'm off to continue studying something too insignificant in your world view to count and leave you to it

Answer 3

I don't recall ever having reprimanded anyone.

I wonder whether we actually believe things on the basis of logic, given the nature of our perceptions and the workings of the brain. How much of the "balance of evidence" to which you refer have you verified? There is a strong likelihood that you have relied upon the authority of others rather than fact check all the details yourself, so there is a strong element of faith in what you believe as well.

Answer 4

both the theists and atheists should either prove or disprove of god and by what you just said proves to me that there are some atheists who don't understand a damn thing about agnosticism or agnostics

Answer 5

Except we know a human invented the ideas of santa claus, and tooth fairy, and some of us humans know that another human invented the idea of God.

Answer 6

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. There is no evidence to support the existence of God, and there is no evidence to deny the existence of God. It's still a tie - the evidence is balanced perfectly.

(response to your edit: I never said we should believe anything. I stated that the evidence was equal for both sides, not weighted in favor of belief.)

Answer 7

hmm, I see a slight fault in your logic when you say nothing we know of can reasonably be attributed to God. We know of reality and the birth of existence, and that things had to have generated from a first principle. So I'd say that's as close as we can ever get to knowing God.

Answer 8

The "balance of evidence" will lead to a BELIEF.

Answer 9

You... don't understand Agnosticism at all.

Answer 10

That is why I am not agnostic.