Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism

"Con has pointed out that Atheists lack evidence to prove there is a god (or something similar) therefore they say it does not exist. Con has also said (in regards to an example given) "the probability of its existence is miniscule. So miniscule, that we can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty.". With this, I know present another reason proving my topic: The con admits that the probability of it's existence is "minuscule" but then proceeds to say "We can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty". http://dictionary.reference.com...... Certainty: 1. the state of being certain. 2. something certain; an assured fact. This is self contradictory as the Con has clearly stated that the probability is "minuscule" (Very small but still exists) and immediately afterwards proceeded to say "So miniscule, that we can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty.". The probability (no matter how small) is still there, meaning that the certainty of it's non-existence is in fact itself; non-existent. Sorry for nitpicking but please choose your words wisely.I have chosen my words very wisely, in fact.Bertrand Russell was a prominent atheist, and this is true about him:"Russell described himself as an agnostic, "speaking to a purely philosophical audience", but as an atheist "speaking popularly", on the basis that he could not disprove the Christian God similar to the way that he could not disprove the Olympic Gods either." [1]In other words, academically, you are right that we cannot be "certain" that a deity does not exist, especially with how loosely you define it. There are no inherently self-contradicting principles in the concept of a deity. But if you are going to wage a war on atheism's denial of the existence of a god, why don't you do the same for anyone who says unicorns don't exist? Or goblins? Or unicorns?This is the whole premise of science, in fact, as I've already stated. The infamous "problem of induction" is ever-present, but if we undermine the general certainty of things we derive inductively and/or empirically, we deny the truth of claims about almost everything, except for perhaps self-contained Euclidean geometry and mathematical principles- that is, a priori truths.The definitions you gave for "certainty" don't really help either, given that they both contain the word "certain". It is presupposed that certainty is clearly defined. This isn't to say that the dictionary is invalid, but just that this is too difficult a subject for the dictionary to want to deal with.Russell was clearly not ignorant. There is no one who knows without a shadow of a doubt that a deity doesn't exist, but you could say the same about anyone who EVER claims certainty on empirical matters.Lastly but importantly, I think you hold that atheists would never change their positions on the existence of a deity. This is simply false. Just because we deny something's existence now, since there is literally no evidence for it, doesn't mean we can't accept its existence in the future. I say with certainty (as certain as I can ever be about almost all things) that unicorns don't exist. But if we find unicorns in some forest, then I will make sure of the veracity, and then change my stance and recognize that unicorns do in fact exist. Almost all atheists I've heard say that they would change their views if they were given evidence, but there simply is none. I can link to atheists that have said this in the comments if needed, but it is very easy to find if you google it."The con has also stated " They deny God because such a being has not been even remotely empirically verified; there is no evidence. This is a very important point, and one that many people miss. The burden of proof is NOT on the atheist, but on the theist to provide evidence. Since there is literally no evidence for a deity (unless you use miracles), atheism is the default position.". I would like to remind con that the debate topic is: Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism. If an Atheist will only believe what they can perceive or comprehend then they are truly ignorant. There are some concepts that human beings simply cannot comprehend. Atheist believe in death quite easily, despite the fact that they, themselves, cannot fully perceive it. You can't touch, see, smell, hear or taste death, yet Atheists still accept it despite their lack of knowledge about it. The same applies to God (or another deity) but Atheist will argue till the cows come home about how it can't be proven and there is no evidence to support it's existence. I can't comprehend the existence of something like that nor will i disregard the evidence against it, but i still believe it might exist." With all due respect, your argument is very incoherent and disjointed. And I am aware of what the debate is, thanks.I already addressed the fact that atheists are NOT atheists because they can't "comprehend" a god very directly. I am not going to type it again, please look at my very first comments in my first response.Atheists believe in death? Things die. They stop living. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. It isn't a matter of belief at all, it's just a biological process.The same doesn't apply to god. There is no evidence for god (or at least you haven't given any), while death is a simple process that obviously happens, there's nothing to "believe" about it. I really have no idea how you are even making a comparison."Nothing is absolute. Words, feelings, perceptions, beliefs, statements, theories, facts, senses, nothing. None of those things are absolute. Not even existence is absolute, but just because i can't prove the existence of the keyboard in front of me, doesn't mean i will stop typing on it." Well if nothing is absolute, including truth, you hold nihilism. This is a self-contradictory viewpoint that isn't held by serious philosophers, because if you can't be certain about anything, you also can't be certain that you can't be certain about anything. Hence, it invalidates itself.But if this is honestly your view, why do you attack atheism specifically? If all statements are inherently uncertain, isn't the agnostic uncertain about saying we can't be certain that there is no god? You can't defend the rationality of ANY view over any other view if you hold such skepticism/nihilism, because literally any and every statement that either side makes cannot be verified.