Why I feel Agnosticism is the way

[Plu]

You don't sound agnostic to me, you sound like a pantheist.

[Atheon]

Agnosticism is not a midpoint between theism and atheism. One is either theist or not theist, and the latter is called an atheist.

Agnosticism is an independent descriptor. I'm an agnostic atheist.

[The Reality Salesman]

Atheism to me is just as pompous as Christianity or any other major religion out there. I have come across relatively the same amount of bigots from both sides. Atheism has devolved from the original concept of being without religion, Atheists today actually BELIEVE there is no god, whereas us Agnostics just don't know, and don't follow things blindly without evidence.

Well right off the bat it’s clear that you seem to not understand what the two terms Atheist and Agnostic mean. They are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism denotes “Knowledge”; more specifically in this case, a lack of knowledge in God(s). Atheism is a lack of belief. You are painting with quite a broad brush when you sweep across nonbelievers and presume to have them pegged as Gnostic Atheists, who claim to know there is no God. Such a claim, in my opinion is just as impossible as any positive claim for any one God or gods. Making a negative claim requires evidence and good arguments as well.

Agnosticism is like Sweden, it's neutral, it's just the scientific side of the fence seems a whole lot more logical than the other.

You realize that Science means “Knowledge”, and agnosticism denotes “No Knowledge”. There’s nothing logical about a blatant contradiction. Agnosticism is a position of intellectual honesty with regards to the existence of a supernatural power. It’s very scientific, to admit where the knowledge and evidence ends. Here’s the rub-All the God claims we have available to us are made by people with insufficient evidence to substantiate them. Each one of those is vulnerable to being objectively evaluated, and if they are found to be unreliable, logically impossible, and for all intents and purposes-false, then those can be rejected outright as such. There’s nothing arrogant about pointing out absurdity when it is being solicited, but it can be annoying when the absurdity continues to spread in spite of its fatal errors in validity.

I also BELIEVE that there is something outside of the visible Universe that so far we cannot explain, or are nearing a breaking point on attempting to explain (string theory, multiverse, etc [I love these theories]). Belief and thinking are practically the same thing. You THINK therefor you ARE.

To say that there is something in or beyond the universe that is beyond our current capacity for understanding is perfectly reasonable. It’s only when you make specific claims about what that “something” is that you are vulnerable to critical inquiry. If your claim cannot be substantiated, and I  can show reasons not to believe it is true, then even if I haven’t shown it to be absolutely false, it is more reasonable to not believe you. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Their claims require evidence and good argument before they receive credence. I do not owe any dignity to absurd ideas simply because people may have attached emotional value to them. As far as a belief being the same thing as thinking, I’d say you are half right.

People don’t believe things simply because they occurred to them in thought, or that such thoughts make them feel good. They believe things because they think they are true. A belief reflects one’s representation of reality. Any belief is either an accurate representation of reality or it is not. 

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, and vise versa.

That’s true, except when it’s not. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if evidence for a specific claim can be expected to exist wherever that “thing” would be. If a planet was supposed to be orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, absence of evidence for an object  orbiting the sun with the characteristics and evidence of being a planet would be perfectly good reasons to reject the claim. If your claim has zero properties of known evidence to support its likelihood, and there is no evidence that one could produce to falsify it, it is not a scientific claim at all. And we are not required entertain any and all hypotheticals based on our ability to disprove them. They need to be substantiated by the individual making the claim. Having an open mind does not mean letting any and everything into it. You’ve got to have a filter.

To believe something so strong (as in there is nothing out there besides dark matter and interstellar space, galaxies, constellations, and planets, etc.) is practically just the same as believing in an all powerful cloud monster.

That is a confused assertion. A person can hold something as true in any number of varying degrees of certainty, and assign confidence values to those beliefs. If calculations of energy available in the universe can show that there is a large portion we cannot currently account for, then it is reasonable to infer there is some amount that is not visible. If there are ways to show that a force is keeping large planetary objects in place that cannot be accounted for the descriptive norms available to us, it is reasonable to infer that there exists another force we have yet to discover. If evidence can be shown that give gravity the descriptive power to account for these things, then such ideas would be revised in lieu of the new evidence. No scientific hypothesis is true in an absolute sense, they are only true insofar as they are plausible. I giant cloud monster in the sky is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with zero explanatory power. There is no reason to assign any significant confidence value to its likelihood. You are conflating a few terms and in some ways you are equivocating their definitions. I hope this clears a few things up for you.

[The Reality Salesman]

http://youtu.be/KayBys8gaJY

[12Monkeys]

Anonobot -- are you also agnostic about fairies and goblins? There's as much evidence for God as there is for fairies.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Agnosticism is basically the same as being constipated on a fence. You can't shit and there's no pot so you stay on the fence.

[stromboli]

Agnosticism is basically the same as being constipated on a fence. You can't shit and there's no pot so you stay on the fence.

That was positively moving. 

[Bibliofagus]

Lol @APA.

The concept of agnostisism - as it is being used in these discussions - is special pleading. I don't 'know' if the universe was created by brownies or not. Same goes for cornflakes, teapots and an infinite amount of other concepts I can define given enough time.
And yeah that includes the vague 'god' thing people talk about.

I see no reason to give more credibility to the idea that 'god' created the universe, than to the idea that cornflakes created the universe. Therefore I reject the label agnostic.

[Simon Moon]

Definitely wasn't saying Atheists are pompous, just saying the % of them between all groups is relatively the same. That's all!
I used to be Atheistic, but I'd rather have a system that is more open to change than others.

What makes you think that atheism is a closed minded position?

For most atheists, atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

I am wide open to alter my position. All that I require is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

As far as the entire agnosticism vs atheism question, the 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.

[stromboli]

What makes you think that atheism is a closed minded position?

For most atheists, atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

I am wide open to alter my position. All that I require is demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic to support the claim that a god exists.

As far as the entire agnosticism vs atheism question, the 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.

I consider myself a "hard" atheist because over time nothing I've seen alters my views, and many things reinforce them. I labeled myself variously as deist, agnostic, and agnostic atheist to get to this point. Regardless of definition, my own experience tells me agnosticism is either a "meh" don't care attitude or a point of transition. I have never considered it a "hard" viewpoint, because nothing I've seen defines it as one. And like Simon, I am open to contradictory evidence, but I've never seen it.

[SGOS]

I consider myself a "hard" atheist because over time nothing I've seen alters my views, and many things reinforce them. I labeled myself variously as deist, agnostic, and agnostic atheist to get to this point. Regardless of definition, my own experience tells me agnosticism is either a "meh" don't care attitude or a point of transition. I have never considered it a "hard" viewpoint, because nothing I've seen defines it as one. And like Simon, I am open to contradictory evidence, but I've never seen it.

I don't see it as a big leap from "I don't believe in God" to "I believe there are no gods."   We are talking about a belief, not a statement of truth.  I too am open to the possibility of a god, but if I'm honest with myself, I believe there are no gods.  It doesn't seem like some hard ass position to me, either.  I just don't see evidence, so I believe their aren't any gods.

[Shol'va]

If it's one thing I dislike strongly, is hit-and-run posters. Where art though, Anonobot?

[stromboli]

If it's one thing I dislike strongly, is hit-and-run posters. Where art though, Anonobot?

Sulking.

[aitm]

pssh posh..agnostics are simply atheists too embarrassed to admit it to family and friends. We get it. Get over yourself,, we get it.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

pssh posh..agnostics are simply atheists too embarrassed to admit it to family and friends. We get it. Get over yourself,, we get it.

Or xtians who won't admit how absurd believing in sky daddy actually is.