Agnostic-Atheism is the most logical position on religion.

Thanks for responding! I will post part of your argument and than rebut it. "First we will define theisms god. For theists god is a timeless, personal, supernatural entity, an immaterial consciousness, is the causal creator of the universe, is free to act intentionally, is maximally powerful, knowledgeable, present and wise. God is morally perfect, infallible, wants a relationship with humanity and is worthy of worship. This definition covers most theist conceptions, I have left out others which may be more specific to one religion or another. If some of the above attributes above are left out however, then we are either not talking about Theism (and therefore Atheism by extension), or we are not talking about anything that we could call a god." - I have to disagree. A theistic God is defined as: 1) the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation; 2) belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ). These definitions contradict your statement. With that, I would say that a deistic God or a theistic God that doesn't have those qualities can still be a God and we can still discuss this. Definition of a God: spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions. God doesn't have to be spaceless or be all good; he just needs to be powerful. I think I have made my point. "We can identify 3 attributes in a concept 1. Primary (Identification or nature, making it what it is), 2. Secondary (Resultant or emergent features, describing it), 3. Relational (Causal, describing the interaction between it and other concepts)." Concept: An idea of what something is or how it works. A God is not an idea, it is a being or spirit, so it isn't a concept. This reasoning can not be applied to God. "When we are looking to a description of a concept we are looking first for its fundamental nature (the question: what is it?). To ask what a jumper is, and then receive a reply: that it is not made of a cotton fabric (negatively described primary attribute), it is brown (secondary attribute), and it keeps you warm (relational attribute), is meaningless. It says nothing about what a jumper actually is. It is the same with the God concept it is only positively described in secondary or relational terms, any primary attribute is always negative, ie god is immaterial, incorporeal, invisible etc. But none of these tell us what the concept of god actually is, only what it is not. As such it renders the concept invalid." So do jumpers not exist? A jumper, like God, is not a concept, so this reasoning doesn't apply. Plus, even if God was a concept, its' primary atribute doesn't have to be negative. The primary atribute could be it is very powerful, or benevolent. Neither of those are negatives. The next 2 paragraphs assume God is a concept or God has certain impossible characteristics. While I do agree certain religions do have impossible Gods, a deistic God or theistic God could exist. To be honest, I really don't understand your second argument. I do, however, fail to see how it disproves a God. As for your 3rd argument, yes, that absolutely applies to certain Gods. However, God doesn't have to have contradictory concepts. To be short, a God with certain characteristics could exist, and it is illogical to deny the existence of it. I await your response.