Isn't agnosticism usually just a misunderstanding of what constitutes knowledge?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. You are asserting that it is. Further, the null hypothesis is one of many that can be examined, and failure to demonstrate falsehood of the null condition is not the same as demonstrating the falsehood of a hypothetical alternative.

Fundamentally, you are operating on a misapprehension of what constitutes proof, and what proof, where it exists, can be extrapolated to prove.

Besides, you aren't really taking a null hypothesis, you are taking a negative hypothesis (there is NO god; that is a negative condition and you haven't demonstrated its truth by simply failing to demonstrate its countercondition (there is god) as not being unequivocally true).

So, you fail the quiz, I am afraid. Gonna have to do better on the next ones or you will fail the course.

I used to be agnostic and to me, it wasn't just about proof or evidence regarding God's existence. Also important, if not more so, was reconciling the evil I saw in the world with the existence of a loving God.

Regarding your notes, there's no reason to say, scientifically speaking, that there is no God since God is beyond nature. So that part just doesn't make sense. As humans we can know things that are not measurable by the tools of science. Scientific evidence is constantly changing, too, as it should, so if you're going to live your life using only scientific knowledge, well, that isn't a very good way to live it. That, too, wouldn't make any sense.

I don't know where you get this 100% certain claim, very few people claim to be 100% certain. From what I know, Thomas Huxley (the man that invented Agnosticism) never addressed 100% certainty. His philosophy of Agnosticism specifically addresses his concerns with the "quite sure" easily found in both Theism and Atheism, while dismissing the absolutely certain as nothing more than wackos.

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley

You seem to be saying you agree with Huxley, but that while he and his generation didn't have scientific grounds for professing to know or believe if existence has intention, you seem to be claiming that you do? WONDERFUL!! Your Nobel Prize awaits you as soon as you produce your scientific grounds or your acceptable scientific levels of certainty, or what words you want to use to claim that justify your claim "I know no deity exists.".

EVERYONE, listen up! Neal is going to tell us specifically what "scientific levels of certainty" he's used to reach his conclusion that "no deity exists"....

[Whispering...] This (assuming you can actually do it) would be a death nail to Huxley's Agnosticism as Huxley said, "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." ... so as anyone can see, if you actually do have "scientific grounds for professing to know or believe" then Agnosticism is dead.

Neal... - the stage is yours - feel free to kill Agnosticism, we're waiting.

We will all note that this is the second time I've offered a stage for Neal to state his case, but Neal, seems a bit shy, everyone give Neal a little encouragement!

agnosticism has always seemed like a very honest position to me, much more in tune with the spirit of truth or knowledge seeking, in fact, much more in keeping with the spirit of scientific endeavours in general, than some of the other more 'set in stone' stances. i like what michael has to say, about the chain of perspectives. understanding this, it is easier to have a more humble attitude, a more open mind, to what may or may not be out there. especially in light of all that we don't yet know. i mean, we live in an universe and we don't yet even know, or have a full grasp on, one of the most basic things about it, what it's made of (which to me is nothing to despair about, it's very exciting), or even how life came to be at all, whether it was a single event or not (as far as know, the mission to mars has yet to determine whether life ever arose on this planet, which is a very close neighbour - just imagine the implications!).

so, given there is so much more we don't know than there is we do know (and that list of questions is massive, a little taster in one of the links i provide below, but i could easily give you another list just as long to do simply with our brain, lol!), i'd say the agnostic position is as valid and justifiable (if not more so) than some of the other popular stances and certainly not just stemming from misunderstanding or confusion (though this cannot be excluded as an option for some people, i suppose, i guess that will depend on the agnostic him/herself).

edit: having read your additional details about the null hypothesis being the default position (for science, rather than for us regular folk who've been brought up with all sorts of assumptions drilled into our minds, some of which we spend time and effort trying to shake off), i still think it's not so much a case of "our general inability to complete our understanding of reality" because we hope that understanding of said reality will continue to increase as we make greater and greater strides, i think it's more an acceptance of the mammoth task still ahead. it seems that the more we find out the more we realise how little we actually know.

the beauty of the scientific process (or one of them, for i believe there are many) is that it is a self-correcting process, it is always open to new evidence and new ideas. there are lots of instances in science, when we thought we knew something and then had to reconsider our 'fact' in light of new knowledge. this is one example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028132.900...

Agnostics say that there is not enough evidence one way or another to make a decision. I, on the other hand am an atheist and do believe the whole god/religion thing is a bunch of nonsense.

@Bob W:

Judge Judy always says "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true". Makes sense, doesn't it?

Neil, you must be very intelligent if you can assure the people on this planet that no where in the vast universe is there a god of any kind. You would have to have really special knowledge to know that there was no god even in this galaxy. So I ask you, how many galaxies are there in the universe and how many stars and planets are there in the Milky Way?

yes...and No evidence does not gain anything nor gives you an assumption of something, The belief in God is mostly thru experience like Love.

Usually, yes.

It's a long standing misconception that agnostics are fence sitters, when all they're saying is "I don't know" which says absolutely nothing about what they believe.

Isn't belief usually just a misunderstanding of what constitutes fact?

I've traveled far to answer this question.

You've got a lot of wisdom.