Is the most intellectually honest position to take, that of agnosticism?

no the most intellectually honest position to take is Christianity. True New Testament Christianity (not denominational religiosity).

Christianity has the most evidence to support it. And it cannot be adequately refuted.

Atheism does not require evidence. As you have said, one cannot prove a negative. Theism is the assertion that a God exist, so the burden of proof is on their camp.

That said, agnosticism is not clearly defined. If you define agnosticism as believing that the truth about the existence of God cannot be known with 100% certainty, then yes, everyone is an agnostic, but of course, then the label becomes meaningless. Why even have words differentiating theism, agnosticism, and atheism?

It's fine if you define agnosticism as being truly neutral about the existence of God, but if you define agnosticism as believing that the truth about the existence of God cannot be known, then we are all agnostic; and not just about God, but about everything. With the exception of mathematical facts, nothing in the world can be proven with 100% certainty. Even the universe as we know it, could be a computer program like the Matrix. There is no way to prove that it isn't. However, we accept the universe to be real because our sense tell us it is real. Artificial extensions of our senses, like MRI and radar, also confirm what our senses will have us believe; that the universe is real.

It is much the same way that I believe that God does not exist. I cannot prove it 100% certainty, but the fact remains that there has never been one iota of evidence to support the claim that there is some sentient deity watching over us, or that a deity is even required.

That is why I call myself an atheist, and not an agnostic.

I like to say that agnostics are the only people smart enough not to take sides in religion.

That said, your definition of atheism leaves something to be desired. Atheism is generally divided into "strong" and "weak": strong atheists are what you're talking about; they have a positive belief that God does not exist. Strong atheists are a very small minority, though; most atheists are weak atheists. Rather than believing specifically that there is no God, they've simply rejected the claims of the various religions because they lack evidence. Weak atheists would be open to reconsidering their position if any of the world's religions could offer some evidence, some good solid reason to think they're right over the other religions.

Atheism is NOT defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist. this is simply incorrect.

Atheism is the rejection of belief systems due to lack of evidence, the lack of belief in the supernatural and the lack of belief in a creator figure - because there is no evidence that stands up to proper scientific testing to suggest otherwise.

Many Atheists (Including Dawkins) actually consider themselves only about 95% atheist, because they are willing to revise their position if new evidence comes to light. after all, you can only go on the evidence you have. but at the moment, the only evidence available points to Evolution, Natural Selection and no creator figure.

If you wanted you could reclassify everyone as Agnostics (to varying degrees) if you applied the strictest sense, until that person dies, then they become an confirmed Atheist or a Theist, depending on what happens next.

But I think

No.

You would not accept that was true for Santa Claus.

You say... "Agnosticism on the other hand is more of a position of knowledge, accepting that nothing can be known about the existence of a deity since the scientific endeavour for example does not take into account and simply cannot measure supernatural phenomenon. "

This seems odd to me. First, I would suggest that agnosticism is not a position of knowledge, it is a position of uncertainty. Second, you seem to accept that something supernatural exists, yet there is no evidence of any supernatural events.

Nope.

"Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist."

No, it's not. It's a lack of belief in other peoples' claims that "gods" of some kind DO exist.

Atheism makes no claims, has no "theories," and has no beliefs.

Agnosticism *does* make a claim -- that human beings *cannot* know if a god or gods exist. That claim is demonstrably false -- there is more than ample evidence to show the vast majority of human-claimed "gods" do not, in fact, exist. That makes the agnostic claim demonstrably false. Agnosticism also makes claims about knowledge based only on *current* knowledge, and denies the obvious fact that our knowledge may increase in the future. That's rather silly.

1) Until someone provides a reason to hypothesize a God, both theists and agnostics are attempting to answer a non-question. If, as you claim, we have no way of meaningfully accessing experiences or information relevant to the existence of a deity, then this is an insurmountable problem, and atheism will always be the most reasonable position.

2) If, however, some relevant experiences and/or information does become accessible - the definition of "natural" has changed several times since the advent of science for just this sort of reason - standard scientific method would still lead to atheism, since the null hypothesis - in this case "No God exists" - is the default position in science.

3) Agnosticism tends to be based on a faulty definition of "knowledge." The assumption is that 100% certainty is needed to say we know something. If that were the case, science would almost never provide knowledge. Given the total lack of evidence for any deity, the claim "No deity exists" is justified, scientifically. Since it is a scientific claim, it is of course revisable based on new evidence.

It is more intellectually honest to admit that there have been people in this world who have achieved the highest reaches of spiritual development and have indeed seen and experienced the Divine.

The problem is that most teachers available to modern societies are just that, teachers, those who understand the concepts of spiritual attainment with their minds, not their Being.

You can preach all day as a popular guru, hold big conventions, establish an ashram, and still be nothing more than a lecturer.

The few souls who do experience God are not easily found, because fame and power and money mean nothing to them, and they are content to live in their same little village, and tend to small pursuits such as feeding the poor or comforting the afflicted. Yet they know God, not as a simple belief, but as a direct understanding and manifestation.

So to be an actual investigator of religion and spirituality requires not the belief that God cannot be known, but instead the determination to find Him, and to keep company with those who have known Him. The assertion that "no one knows" is wrong.

First never listen to an Atheist try to tell you what an Agnostic is, you will get propaganda.

An Agnostic is someone who has Adopted the personal philosophy of Thomas Huxley who invented Agnosticism. According to Huxley this is a list of things he is NOT, "atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian". There is no such thing as Agnostic Christians or Atheist as once you read what Huxley had to say it's more than clear that they are mutually exclusive.

Huxley compared Atheist to the unbearable know-it-alls of the early church - and found Atheism more offensive than Theism, because Atheism professes to be guided by reason and science, and Theism does not.

You will note that in the list above Huxley includes Materialist - the vast majority of Atheist are Materialist and make huge unwarranted assumptions based on this assumptive hypothesis.

If you are looking at Agnosticism, then start with it's inventor, and understand it's HIS personal philosophy - anyone is free to agree or disagree with Huxley - but redefine his philosophy to suit your ideas and you are no longer an Agnostic, make up some other name for your postion. Honest academics would never do that to even Hitler's Mein Kampf, Atheist are so threatened by Huxley that they see misrepresenting him a duty.

I have read everything by Huxley more than a few times and I have adopted his very simple philosophy as my own, as did Darwin, Einstein, Sagan and I think Tyson but Tyson is a bit ambiguous about his -ism's. Let me know if you need some links to Huxley's work on the subject.

TJ Bradders

As an agnostic, let me try to answer the question this way.

Anyone who has ever looked down a microscope or up through a telescope cannot fail to be impressed by the beauty and sheer elegance of what is revealed. However, that does not automatically become proof of a single great creator: nor does it refute it. But when people try to persuade me that the same creator has a direct and personal involvement in my life, this does not accord with my own experience. If I die tomorrow, a few people will be really upset, quite a few people will be vaguely interested and to everybody else my death will be a non-event.

Faith can be defined as believing without proof and I take the view that, provided that a person's faith does not impinge on the right of everybody else to take their own decisions, I am happy for them to derive whatever comfort and peace of mind that they derive from their faith.

If, when I die, I find that I was wrong, I shall cry, "Where was the proof???"

You're right. Atheism is a faith position that there is no god, while agnosticism is the intellectually honest position that we have no evidence either way. To take Richard Dawkins as an example, he recognises this but calls himself an atheist because he thinks that as there is no evidence that God DOES exist, it's not too far a leap to come to the conclusion that, as you say, the likelihood of his/her/its existence shrinks asymptotically to zero.

But in practice of how you live your life, where's the difference?