Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism

Hi, I hope this is a productive debate! For the record, I am agnostic and willing to convert to a religion later in my life if I am so inclined, but I will probably remain non-religious. I myself never intend to be an atheist, but this is more out of personal feeling than it is logic. Atheism is the most rationally grounded position, I hold; I am only agnostic because I feel that there is a deity. But feelings are not indicative of truth :). So I will defend the rationality of atheism.Also, I will defend atheism generally, as it is held by the majority of atheists, but there are always exceptions.Also, I may use Wikipedia. Please don't smite me from on high, it is a useful source!"I believe that Agnosticism is less ignorant than Atheism because Atheists abolish any possibility that a god, deity or higher power exists in the universe simply because they can't comprehend it. I honestly can't comprehend it either but i'm open to the fact it may be true."This simply isn't true; they don't deny the possibility of a God because they can't comprehend it. 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 will illustrate this by an example: let's say I told you that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reason people are generally taller in places with higher populations is because it is more difficult for him to push them all down with his invisible and undetectable noodley appendages. If you follow his statutes, you will go to a land of endless pasta. Now, could I honestly expect YOU to have to prove that such a thing doesn't exist? Of course not. There is no way to prove that the FSM doesn't exist. We have to assume, therefore, by Occam's Razor, that he does not exist. The amount of unwarranted assumptions in the concept of the FSM is so great that the probability of its existence is miniscule. So miniscule, that we can safely say it does NOT exist with certainty.This is the very basis of all empirical knowledge. You could say just as easily that people who are SURE that things fall when you drop them on earth are "ignorant". It doesn't matter what your epistemological framework is. Either all certainty that we gleam from science has to have a qualifier of possible untruth, which is ridiculous and impractical, and thus your argument against atheism might hold, or both scientific conclusions and atheism are true."If you really think about it; it is very possible that existence never had a beginning. At this point we currently know that the earth hasn't been around long (compared to the rest of the universe) and we know that the planets and bodies that surround us eventually began. A long time ago there was one point in time when nothing we know existed. No planets, no gravity, no stars, no moon, no oxygen, just nothing. Something had to have begun somewhere, to think otherwise is ludicrous. That is why i hypothesize that the creation of what we perceive as existence began with some kind of outside force or third party. One thing i do find easy to believe is that some kind of mass of energy that has existed beyond existence itself had some kind of part in the forming of our universes and galaxy's. I like to think of it as a she (although it would probably be gender less, my idea of it would be something that creates life and matter). Let's call her Eve (pun intended). Eve is everything and nothing, Eve is perfect, Eve knows everything and nothing, Eve has always existed but never existed. Eve is a complicated chick. Eve one day decides that she would create a plane of existence with certain chemicals and elements and let nature take its course. She's probably done the exact same thing an infinite amount of times before which leads me to believe there are an infinite amount of exact replicas of our plane of existence, and some. Due to the fact that Atheists refuse to believe there is no kind of god/deity/higher power i believe that while Agnostics segregate themselves from conventional religions, Agnostics still have a more open mind on these kinds of things as opposed to Atheists who bluntly deny the existence of a god or anything of the sort. (Holy crap i could create my own religion and everything)"Right, this is the "prime mover" argument; it comes up in many different variants.I don't honestly think I need to address this very much. I could go into a ridiculously complex metaphysical argument about the nature of causation and why it is just as reasonable to think that causation is circular or that it infinitely regresses as that there is a God, but I won't, because that is uncertain metaphysical grounds.Instead, I will grant you the truth of this argument, that there must be something which caused the universe. Now, what exactly did you prove? I think that there was a small invisible atom that started the universe. If you call this a "god", then sure, but that is quite the loose definition. The thing that started the universe could be ANYTHING. It could be a strawberry donut. It could be void itself that has some special power. Defining these as "god" is ridiculous. So the prime mover argument doesn't tell us anything except that something caused the universe, which is almost tautological and doesn't say anything about a god.