Alright, I'd like to deal with this whole Agnosticism thing that has popped up. Agnosticism is not defined as impossibility to know anything, agnosticism is a stance you take when you currently lack enough evidence to commit to any sort of opinion on an issue. Take whether life exists on other planets. I would have to say that I'm agnostic about the issue, because we do not currently have enough evidence to say whether we're the only planet in the universe with life, or that life does indeed exist on other planets.
Agnosticism is not about taking a position but from the abstaining from taking a position on a particular issue. If you're arguing for people to adopt agnosticism, you can't really be truly agnostic yourself.
Now, as for agnosticism as applied to god(s), it is tempting to be lead into that position. After all, there isn't any direct evidence that a god does not exist, right? But, if you think about it more deeply, you'll see that there are some flaws in taking such a position.
If a god (or gods) never actually existed, you'll obviously never find any tangible evidence of them not existing. There will never be anything that will explicitly say "by the way, god doesn't exist, I invalidate it". You just can't find evidence to prove the nonexistence of something, because its very nonexistence will mean that there will be no evidence pertaining to it, especially, might I add, with such amorphously defined beings as gods tend to be.
Now, if you're agnostic because you're waiting on some evidence to come forth that ultimately and undeniably repudiates the existence of any god, you're going to be waiting forever. We'll never be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that gods don't exist, especially with religious people willing to undergo huge mental exertions and contortions to somehow allow the possibility of their god to exist.
Instead, what you have to do in a case like this, is look at what evidence we do have, and see how that affects the probability of gods existing. Naturally, due to the indirect and inferential nature of such an analysis, you'll never be able to truly achieve 100% or 0%. It will give a good clear indication though, if you're willing and able to see and understand the evidence and what it implies.
So, with scientific theories (by the way, if anyone still thinks that a scientific "theory" is simply postulated opinion,
please read this) such as evolution, and our current understanding of physics, biology, astronomy, geology, and psychology, the evidence makes it highly unlikely that gods exist, to the degree that it is safest and best to assert that they do not.
Therefore, holding a position of agnosticism either generally means a person has not fully studied or comprehended the evidence, is moderately religiously inclined themselves but has difficulty reconciling that belief with current knowledge, or is truly tired of or is disinterested in the discussion of the possibility of gods existing or not.
There is also the drive to pick agnosticism to go under the guise of being "tolerant" or "open-minded" and "unbiased". Sadly, this is not the case with agnosticism. Being tolerant or open-minded is being able to accept and understand of a position or piece of evidence, regardless of whether it goes along with what you wanted to believe, but that is only if the position or piece of evidence is true or factually backed up. It isn't being tolerant or open-minded when you give equal footage to a position that has no solid evidence to back its position to another position that does, especially when they're at odds with one another. Instead, that's just being either plain dishonest, intellectually unrigorous, or ignorant. You do not sacrifice the facts and the truth value of a position or statement just in the name of trying to be "fair". People have to learn that you must first fact-check and critically analyze that positions being extolled, and only once one has ascertained their level of truth will you then worry about comparing and contrasting them with equal footing.
For example, if someone claims that the moon is made out of cheese, yet someone else claims it is made out of rock, you don't simply go "well, each position is plausible, therefore everyone must accept them as equally possible." No, you should go check the data, get rock samples from the moon, see the evidence, check the facts, and then understand which position is true and which is false.
To claim that atheists are as fundamentalist as some of their religious opponents are is not only incredibly misleading, but shows that you don't truly understand what it means to be an atheist. As an atheist, I know exactly what it is that forms my opinion and, most importantly, what will make me change my mind; evidence. If the evidence showed strongly that a god does exist, I would change my position to accommodate it, regardless of how personally I felt about it. However, on the other hand, religious fundamentalists believe what they want to believe and will not allow anything to change their mind nor contradict what they believe. Despite the overwhelming evidence against their belief, they will continue to believe. That is what makes a fundamentalist truly a fundamentalist; their complete and utter devotion to an idea/belief from which nothing will sway them from believing in.
To go a bit into what is an altogether longer discussion, religious agnosticism also gives credence and ability for people to believe what they want to believe irregardless of religion. I wrote quite a lengthy post about it in the other thread, but in hopefully a much shorter form of it, what people believe has to be and should be tempered by facts and evidence. We, as intelligent, moral, and responsible people cannot allow for people to build up a system of beliefs willy nilly, irregardless of evidence. Such irrational beliefs are what lead to suicide bombers, the Inquisition, and 9/11. It is my personal opinion that the world would be a more humane, intelligent, and moral without religion.
If want to read into deeper why I believe as such, I highly recommend reading Sam Harris' book
End of Faith.
