>>61
But I still think it's better to take an agnostic approach to theists and their claims
Why? You're compromising science and the advancement of knowledge just to avoid offending religious zealots.
Look at it this way. Do you take an agnostic approach to evolution? There is a mountain of evidence against creation and for evolution; it's downright ignorant to believe it at this point. Are you one of those people who still says "we can't know for sure that evolution is true"?
If not, where do you draw the line? Why is there enough evidence against creation to declare it to be untrue, but not enough evidence against the biblical God? There doesn't appear to ever be a threshold to satisfy you.
If you do remain agnostic about evolution, by your logic, we can't know for sure whether *anything* is true. You've completely trivialized the concepts of truth and knowledge.
The fact of the matter is we're trapped in our universe, so if some being is changing the rules outside our universe, we can't know the difference because it doesn't affect us. What we see is what is true, end of story.
God's motives are way beyond us, and as such, if we say that he must not exist just because he doesn't do what we expect him to do, we're just talking out our asses.
Wrong. As far as the biblical God goes, He TOLD us what to expect Him to do. We should be able to see it in our everyday lives, but we don't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If God operates behind the scenes, then he has no effect on our universe, so whether or not he exists is not something that can be true or false. Can we stop talking about this kind of God already?
Bottom line: Are you agnostic about the biblical God? Are you sure about whether or not the Christian God exists?