Atheism v. Agnosticism!

After a brief and interesting exchange of views with Skeptic44 and Monopoly Guy, I went back and reread the section in Richard Dawkin’s ‘God Delusion’ entitled: ‘The Poverty of Agnosticism’ (See pages 46-54 of the Bantum Press edition.) Dawkins attacks the agnostics: ‘namby-pamby, mushy pap, weak tea, weedy, pallid fence sitters’ (his quote, not his words) using a probabilistic approach. He argues that given the evidence available, it is not reasonable to ascribe a 50-50 probability for the existence of God.

The meaning of the word Agnosticism, comes from the Greek: ‘without knowledge’. Given that science has provided enormous amounts of knowledge that contradicts the empirical claims of religion, is it reasonable to maintain a position that ‘the jury is still out’?

(I suspect that our theist friends pokoj, luke and jesse can sit back on this one, rather like the Iranians during the first Gulf War, not caring who wins, but hoping for plenty of casualties.)