Question for Agnostics

PE, I put myself in exactly the same boat. I think the way to rationalise your example is the same way I rationalise the potential existence of God. Until I have evidence that Willy Wonka/God exists, I am under no obligation to accept the existence of said beings.Where Atheism (as we understand it) differs, is that it says there is no evidence for the existence of Willy Wonka/God, therefore they don't exist. This is essentially an argument from ignorance: if it hasn't been proven to be true, it is false. This is precisely the double standard I wanted to avoid, I can't very well tell creationists they are logically flawed when I am myself. So it seemed to me that I had to make the short pidgeon step from atheist to agnostic. Nothings changed, I still carry on my life as if a God doesn't exist, why shouldn't I? I'm just not guilty of a logical flaw anymore.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

PE, In a very real sense, yes. If you aren't in possession of contradictory evidence, then don't rule it out.I have a friend who always accuses me of sitting on the fence as an agnostic, I tend to see it as a sliding scale. I am not 50/50 undecided, I am 99.99% recurring on the side of no God. Not at all, & I realise I'm being absolutist about what I've previously written, but I mean it when I say I have no evidential obligation to accept that a God exists. This is different from postively asserting that none exists. That's true, I have no belief in God, & under this definition I am an atheist (satisfied ), but at the end of the day, we're quibbling about definitions. Whatever definition you choose, I'll happily slot into it, as long as it is consistent with, "I have no evidential basis to accept God, but neither can I rule Him/Her/It out, therefore I'll continue as if there isn't one."Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.