Agnostic atheism is the most reasonable perspective to adopt regarding religion.

I am happy to debate this topic with strict atheists or theists; I am also happy to argue against this proposition as an atheist or theist so anyone who wishes to engage in such a discussion is free to write up something comparable to this position or even copy and paste it and challenge me as "con." This is the only position I am posting as an open challenge for now because it's my honest position.Proposed definitions:From the definitions of agnosticism [1] and atheism [2], agnostics are not necessarily atheistic, atheists are not necessarily agnostic, and it is possible to adopt an agnostic and atheistic belief at the same time. The position of 'agnostic atheism' ranks agnosticism as an absolute position and atheism as a probable truth [3]. Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists [4]. Reason is "the thing that makes some fact intelligible." [5].I view science as a logical means by which the human race 'reads' the physical universe. I provide the metaphor of reading words off a page as a concrete reference point for my propositions. My opposition is free to attempt deconstruction and disproof or weakening the metaphor, propose a viable reasoning process outside the scope of the scientific method, or challenge my definition of science to the best of his / her ability.Pn = proposition regarding interpretation in general.Rn = example of Pn in relation to reading as an interpretive process.Sn= example of Pn in relation to science as a search for truth.P1: Interpretive strength is independent of interpretive scope.R1: The ability to read does not give the reader a knowledge of everything that can be read. S1: Science does not claim to know everything about the universe.P1: The existence of material not interpreted does not reflect on the validity of the interpretive process.R2: The existence of a book that an individual has not read does not prove the person is unable to read.S2: The existence of a question science has not answered does not prove science is wrong.P3: The interpretive process cannot accurately extrapolate the existence of something without evidence.R3: The ability to read does not give you the ability to read a blank page.S3: Science cannot be expected to understand things that have no evidence.P4: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, the burden of proof must default to predict the absence of the object or idea.R4: When a page is blank, it is reasonable to conclude there are no words on the page, even if (and because) the reader admits to being unable to read the words on the page.S4: When there is no evidence of a spirit world, it is reasonable to conclude a spirit world does not exist, even if (and precisely because) scientists admit to having no explanation. P5: In the absence of evidence of an object or idea, the burden of proof must NOT default to 'assume' the absence of the object or idea.R5: When a page is blank, there could be invisible ink, so it is unreasonable to conclude 'absolutely' that there is nothing to read, but perfectly reasonable to conclude 'probably' that there is nothing to read.S5: When there is no evidence of a spirit world, it is unreasonable to conclude 'absolutely' that there is no spirit world, but perfectly reasonable to conclude there is 'probably' no spirit world.The disproof of my proposition as worded either in Proposition S5 or in the title of this debate will suffice as a victory for my opposition.1. "Agnosticism is the view that we do not know whether there is a God or not." Hepburn, Ronald W. (2005) [1967]. "Agnosticism". Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from a Wikipedia.org citation, 8 November 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org....2. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." - Edwards, 2005. Retrieved from a Wikipedia.org citation, 8 November 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org.... 3. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term agnostic does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god." Smith, George H (1979), pages 10-11. Retrieved from a Wikipedia.org citation, 8 November 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. "Belief in the existence of a god or gods." - Theism. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, retrieved 8 November 2012. http://www.merriam-webster.com....5. "The thing that makes some fact intelligible" - Reason. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, retrieved 8 November 2012. http://www.merriam-webster.com....