Agnosticism is the Correct Religious Stance

It has been an honor and a privilege. Now in closing, I would like to sum up what it is that I think in regards to this issue since I feel we have gotten a bit off topic and it needs clarification. The topic was about agnosticism versus atheism, not atheism versus deism. The fact that the definition of god by the deists adds nothing to the discussion since the very nature of such a being is by its very definition unknowable, and therefore the only god that would even add anything to this discussion would be the theistic god which me and my opponent has already decided is a preposterous proposal and disregarded early in the debate. Atheists make no such claims to be certain either way as to the existence of god, they simply claim that the evidence and arguments on the other side of the isle are unconvincing and therefore unproved (We also hold that we feel that this is an insurmountable task and very unlikely to be undertaken, and I and most atheists are about 99.99% certain that there is no god, but as stated you can’t state 100% surety of such a claim). Agnostics claim that it would be unwise to say that there is no god and that evidence may show up in the future to prove the existence of god. Since the definition of god is unattainable and we have no basis of understanding what such criteria of evidence might entail, my question is, if we did find evidence that looked like it could only be explained by a god, what would make this evidence compelling at all? This evidence may simply point to a part of science we yet know about and may have a scientific understanding later in the future. There is no reason to treat any phenomena differently than other fields of study and just because we don’t have a good answer for something doesn’t mean we won’t have an answer for it at a later date. The scientific method is used for everything in learning about the universe. Logic and philosophy take a huge role in this yes, however if you have no hard evidence to back up your claim that there is a god, then the wise position is to NOT BELIEVE in such a claim until such time that there is supporting evidence backing it up. Again I will use the analogy of leprechauns and unicorns; you don’t have a special word for the disbelief in such creatures, and you certainly don’t need a word for those who are on the fence regarding the mythical existence of said creatures, You have two sides, those who believe these creatures exist, and those who say it is ludicrous and say that no evidence exists for them. I assume my opponent uses his common sense and agrees with this logic, and I say then what makes the question of god anything different? The analogy of the atomic bombs still had empirical evidence and study backing it up, and since the question of god has NONE, we are forced to conclude that a bomb (AKA god) did not go off. The analogy is a good one, but invalid since it still uses the very system you claim is not necessary. As a quote from my opponent: “Agnostics, like atheists, are skeptical. We do not claim that there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God. Like my opponent, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence to disprove the existence of God, nor could there ever be. The difference I have set between my opponent and I is that I don't believe we are justified to begin disbelieving in the existence of a grand creator. We are PERFECTLY justified to begin disbelieving in the religious sects and so-called experts on the existence of God, but not whether or not it exists as a grand creator. ” My question to him would be what would constitute as good reason to NOT believe in something? If you go to a fortune teller that is constantly wrong and makes bad predictions, then aren’t you justified in not believing what they say simply on the accuracy of their claims? The same can be said in regards to god; if you have such a bad reputation of false predictions, bad data, illogical assumptions, and failed theories… Why would even consider being neutral? We say the same thing to that friend that stays with that boyfriend that treats her like dirt, but she sticks with him thinking he’s going to change. I Would hope we would all say the same thing and advise her to leave him before she gets hurt, and that is what the atheist says about god So again, I say that agnosticism is an irrelevant position since they are proclaimed atheists, except they reserve judgment for a later date. I ask you, the voter, who has the more reasonable stance, the atheist or the agnostic?