He's AGNOSTIC! ROTFLOL Agnostic. There's a winner of a belief system. The pinnacle of reasoned thought and logic. LOL, I mean c'mon!
At least an atheist can look himself in the mirror and say "I know what I believe and why." If you believe that science is the greatest discipline and logic is man's greatest faculty then atheism is an understandable conclusion to come to. A creator cannot be proved to exist by reason alone and creation of the universe can't be duplicated in a test that is repeatable and verifiable by 'objective' observers. So the atheist can construct a rationale of logic that works.
But what does an agnostic believe?
ag·nos·tic
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
So an agnostic is someone who thinks "I don't have the power or faculties to know if there is a God" but he will contemplate the idea anyway. "Knowing God is impossible but I'll spend time trying." The dictionary is kind to describe an agnostic as 'noncommittal'. It could also say "willing to beleive what is unbeleivable if I can find proof of the unprovable". Or "not afraid to waste time spinning my wheels". That is the most profoundly illogical (and useless) view of life I can think of. It would be better to think that this is all a dream and I'll wake up when I "die". Whether you were right or wrong that would be better because at least you wouldn't waste your time thinking about something you think isn't worth thinking about.
That was the first of several definitions of agnostic I found. The others just deepen the quicksand. Interestingly the word agnostic was coined in 1870 by Thomas Huxley. The only thing I know about him is that he was the father of Aldous Huxley. I wonder if Brave New World came from experiencing the vacuousness of daddie's mind?
XBob reminds me of this old conundrum:
The following statement is true. The preceding statement is false.
He's the walking talking version of it. Every point he makes is premised on the nature of creation and its creator and is then followed with the disclaimer that he is using someone else's belief to explain things and besides he hasn't decided whether to believe it or not. Proceeding from his theology/nontheology everything he says is naturally meaningless/meaningless. And you can't prove that it means anything either.