It's important that we follow our beliefs for a reason. They must be logically consistent. When presented with a choice of candidate world views, we must be able to select our own by applying our logic. If we cannot, do we really have reason to follow this doctrine? To distill the question somewhat: Using your logic, which of the following world views would you choose? Atheistic conclusions based on evidence Religious faith Agnostic demands of absolute proof Let's examine how each philosophy would approach this question. Atheists would employ skepticism. They would consider the evidence—the technological triumphs of their method (also known as "the scientific method"), the experiments that have confirmed various theories with remarkable precision—and conclude that their method has been by far the most successful. Despite the fact that few ideas are ever actually proven wrong, it is by the separation of the logical from the illogical that progress is made. By and large, accepting what the evidence, or lack thereof, tells us has been extremely successful. Theists would consider this question a matter of faith. They would have faith that God has made their method correct. For this thought experiment, this is a perfectly acceptable view. We are, after all, just testing to see if each doctrine is consistent with itself. Agnostics struggle with this test. There is no conclusive proof that any of the different philosophies is absolutely correct. Why should we preferentially choose one over another when there is a possibility, however remote, that another one is how we should approach the world? This is not a logically consistent viewpoint. Applying their own logic, agnostics find that they have no reason to accept their own philosophy. Note: I don't mean this as an attack on anyone. Keep your flaming and trolling elsewhere. I'm interested in starting a discussion and seeing how agnostics reply to this. EDIT: Here I have defined the terms I am using for clarity's sake.