Agnostics don't acknowledge that there is no God. And you don't know if they did mental research or anything; I'm quite sure many, many people, atheists, could easily argue with you on the presence of God. Why it is more stupid to believe in no God than the opposite? That's pretty much the agnostic position on this case. "They blind themselves"; is this turning into a war where each position accuse the other side for being blind? As I said, none of them can be proved, so don't ever say that it's stupid. It's not. Both sides can believe in something, fine, but they can't prove that they're talking about something that really exists.
Also, I can observe that you abolutely didn't get my last post, but I don't want to go into mutual arrogance.
^ Yes please, do it. Sure, you can make your own definition of God and make it realistic, but and even there, I think I would doubt about it.
Also, I can observe that you abolutely didn't get my last post, but I don't want to go into mutual arrogance.
^ Yes please, do it. Sure, you can make your own definition of God and make it realistic, but and even there, I think I would doubt about it.