No, I'm an Atheist. That's Richard Dawkin's reasoning, which I am rather familiar with, even if I've imperfectly communicated it here. :)
I *know* God does not exist. I have no doubt that he does not exist because there is no scientific evidence to support his existence. If evidence emerges to support his existence according to established Scientific Method, I'd believe.
Agnosticism says that you can't know (because it is not proven either way) and therefore,
Exactly. The 'either way' bit is crucial to the Agnostic viewpoint. The Dawkin position is that the overbearing weigh of evidence is to non-existence. Allowing that evidence may change that position is not Agnosticism; it's just the Scientific Method at work. Agnosticism is for the intellectually lazy who refuse to follow the logic of Science to the current conclusion: that God does not exist. :)
no subject
I *know* God does not exist. I have no doubt that he does not exist because there is no scientific evidence to support his existence. If evidence emerges to support his existence according to established Scientific Method, I'd believe.
Agnosticism says that you can't know (because it is not proven either way) and therefore,
Exactly. The 'either way' bit is crucial to the Agnostic viewpoint. The Dawkin position is that the overbearing weigh of evidence is to non-existence. Allowing that evidence may change that position is not Agnosticism; it's just the Scientific Method at work. Agnosticism is for the intellectually lazy who refuse to follow the logic of Science to the current conclusion: that God does not exist. :)