> Lee Daniel Crocker
Given that definition, your approach to theological questions sounds quite
reasonable. But, I'm left wondering, where does that leave the distinction
between atheism and agnostism? Cannot an agnostic hold, after all, that there
exists no solid proof of gods and that believing in gods constitutes an utter
waste of time? That is, cannot an agnostic agree with you that it is (for the
practical reasons you described) "wrong" to believe in god?
It makes more sense, I think, to hold that atheists believe that gods do not
exist whereas agnostics shrug off such questions as beyond rational discourse.
That is, atheists disbelieve in gods; agnostics do not believe in gods.