A Deteriorating State :: Morality in the 21st Century

Show me a non-existent invisible pink unicorn and I will happily accept that as proof as they don't exist...Based on the current level of proof for the existence of God (ie NONE) I am happy to conclude that he/she/it doesn't exist. as with the unicorn problem above, I am well aware of the issues of proving the non-existence of a non-existent thing. I have to concede this difficulty re:God, making me 'technically 'Agnostic on the subject.However IF the choice is existent over non-existent and after five thousand years of searching there is zero evidence FOR existence then non-existence is not an unreasonable stance to take, despite not being able to 'Prove' it.While it is perfectly fine to be agnostic about many things (like the the colour of Vlaimir Putin's underpants at the very moment you read this) to remain so in the light of the crushing lack of evidence for god's existence is, in truth, cowardly fence sitting.

There is no dishonesty in my statements.The fact of the matter is God exists or he does not. these are the only two states allowed. existence/non-existence.While we accept that you can not 'prove' the non-existence of something, this does not stop one reaching an honest conclusion in regard to the existence of any given object.People say that there is a monster in Loch Ness. Some claim to have seen it, some to have photographed it. Yet to date, despite many in-depth studies and searches (including a radar scan of the entire Loch) no credible evidence has been unearthed. Taking the extraordinary nature of the claim, and the lack of evidence for this claim, is it not the more credible stance to conclude that the beastie does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?...People say that there is a GOD. Some claim to have seen it, some to have spoken to it. Yet to date, despite many in-depth studies and searches over a 5000 year recorded history, NO credible evidence has EVER been unearthed. Taking the implausibly of the claim, and the utter lack of evidence for it, is it not the more credible stance to conclude that said God does not exist? While, at the same time, acknowledging my limitations in proving this non-existence?Just because we can't prove God's non existence, and those who believe have yet to prove it doesn't mean the choice is 50/50. on this subject it is the agnostic fence sitter who is the dishonest one. The agnostic refuses to drum up an opinion either way, citing 'lack of evidence'.Sadly for him, this lack of evidence when talking about the existence/non-existence question IS actually evidence (of sort) for the non-existence camp. The existence of the tooth-fairy is just as un-provable as any other non-existent thing, and yet you will find very few Tooth-fairy agnostics.Why? Based on the evidence, 'non-x' is the only rational and honest conclusion.

What the hell are you dribbling on about?Ohh. I get it.This is just another attempt to re-define atheists out of existence.OK. What about that huge diamond of yours? you know the one the size of a refrigerator?