Agnosticism is the only intellectually honest opinion - a statement of fact atheist fundies care to ignore.
From Wiki:
Types of agnosticism
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[17]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[17]
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed][18]
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[19] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[20][not in citation given]
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, this is basically where I'm at: "
Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable."
I have yet to see a coherent definition of deity be put forward. The best I have seen is the apophatic approach that Thomas suggested to me which defines God in terms of what It is not, but that too requires an acceptance of an initial existential proposition.
God (whatever That may be) is a mystery that belongs in a metaphysical space. So long as it stays in metaphysical space, like a character in a story, it can be super meaningful and perform all sorts of useful functions. The question of literality remains un-begged and unnecessary. I only start to have a problem with God when it's dragged across the hall into the physical sphere. That's when I start needing a coherent definition and theory of what exactly It is and does.
Strictly speaking, though, the physical and metaphysical worlds are always inter-penetrative. The life of mind and hands isn't two separate things. I suppose that the positioning of the fulcrum between the mental and physical worlds is a matter of personal choice based mostly on occupational and philosophical needs.
Chris
