This is an interesting examination of the logical underpinning of agnosticism and the rejection thereof. Refuting concept that "One can't prove that god doesn't exist so agnosticism is the only logical alternative" is the specific target of the argument. Link (It doesn't leave much room for theism either.)

I first ran across this line of reasoning in Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Essentially Stenger argues that the requirement to support a hypothesis (e.g., "that god exists") rests with the persons advancing the hypothesis and not with the persons that doubt the existence of the being so hypothesized. The lack of such support places the hypothesis into the ranks of "failed hypothesises" and does not require any futher effort from the doubters.

...he's saying that God's existence cannot be proven....but since DISPROVING it would also be impossible, is not Agnosticism then the MOST logical belief?

Stenger is simply wrong if he's claiming that "science shows that God does not exist." Science has "shown" no such thing. It simply shows that certain claimed events or actions attributed to a God have, or may have, alternate and rational explanations. If you will, it casts doubts on traditional religious belief.

Do we accept that the "graviton" absolutely does not exist, and any wavering or "agnosticism" towards the existance of the graviton (which is un-proven)...is a "failed hypothesis"?

Would that theory have applied to the neutron 150 years ago....or the theory of germs 300 years ago?

Considering that his starting point is agnosticism compared to atheism as a belief in the nonexistence of god, the argument simply redefines atheism to win. It comes down to definitions. Atheism as 'belief in no god' -- that's not me, I'm not that atheist. Atheism as 'lack of belief in a god' -- that's me, I'm that atheist.

I see the two referred to as 'strong' and 'weak' atheism, and it doesn't help that I mix the two up myself -- overall I am 'weak,' but re: xianity I am 'strong.'

Actually, what Stenger is saying is that the existance of god is presented as a hypothesis: God exists. As such, the burden of proof is to those advancing the hypothesis, not on those that doubt the hypothesis. As an extension of this concept, if the evidence presented for the existance of god can be refuted by science then it can logically be said that science has shown (not "proven") that god doesn't exist.

From article at the posted:

In short, I think that the weight of demonstration is not on the atheist’s shoulders but on those of the agnostic. Atheism is not a belief, rather it is the absence of a belief, and it is beliefs which need to be justified. This is, in fact, basic common sense. We proceed this way in our everyday life.

If, for example, my girlfriend is twenty minutes late for a rendezvous and my friend suggests she has been kidnapped, I will not base my future actions on my friend's suggestion--even if it is a possibility which cannot at present be eliminated. I will not be agnostic towards the possibility, rather I will reject it and laugh about it because I have, for the moment, no good reason to believe that this unlikely possibility has a significant weight in the balance. What would be the sense of my friend noting that I have a belief that my girlfriend has not been kidnapped and then asking me to prove that I am right?

Reptilicus:

Do we accept that the "graviton" absolutely does not exist, and any wavering or "agnosticism" towards the existance of the graviton (which is un-proven)...is a "failed hypothesis"?

Would that theory have applied to the neutron 150 years ago....or the theory of germs 300 years ago?

I think that it is fairly easy. If evidence of a god is found, atheism as a reality based stance would cease to exist. Until such evidence is presented, god, the basis of theism, has no reference points in reality. Without any basis in reality, the "wavering" which agnosticism grants to theism, is a concession that is more "social" based than "science" based.

but since DISPROVING it would also be impossible, is not Agnosticism then the MOST logical belief?

No.

Science and reason are not agnostic about the existence of ghosts, zombies and leprechauns.

It is impossible to DISPROVE their existence but that doesn not mean that one has to be "agnostic" about EVERYTHING.

One can take into accounts all of the failed claims and bad science of those who have proposed the existence of ghosts and reasonably conclude that ghosts do not exiest

I think that, in a very large, very old universe where we continually discover new things unimaginable in centuries past, like radio waves and dark matter and energy, agnosticism is prudent.

Of course, my G*d is limited in time, a product of the universe, and likely somewhat limited in space, only being known of a certainty to exist in my mind, so he could be hiding the other side of a black hole somewhere and has yet to be discovered.

There is a difference between an unproven hypothesis and a failed hypothesis

...a particular form of agnosticism. He speaks only about a “monotheistic G*d.” Presumably, although he doesn’t say so directly, he’s referring to the G*d of the Abrahamic religions as described in the sacred texts and traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and/or Islam. It’s the existence of this G*d that Lacroix says we’re justified in rejecting based on what he defines as “valid knowledge.” Okay. happyatheist for one has made much the same argument about various G*ds many times on this forum. It’s a fair point. It would be rather wishy-washy for someone who espouses methodological naturalism to claim to be an agnostic regarding the question of whether or not G*d stopped the earth’s rotation in order to give Joshua and the Israelites daylight enough to thoroughly slaughter the Amorites, for example. Surely if one truly accepts the premises of science then one is justified in rejecting certain notions about what a G*d is and how he/she/it interacts with us humans.

But, as Lacroix is careful to note, even if we reject the monotheistic G*d of Abraham, we must distinguish between that concept and “the possibility of some form or other of transcendence, which we can say nothing about but cannot discard as an absurd idea [...].” So there we are. The line between hard agnosticism and soft atheism is fairly blurry. Lacroix calls himself an atheist; I call myself a hard agnostic. But, as far as I can tell, he and I are not very far apart in our essential beliefs about “G*d.” In that sense I’d say it’s a bit much to claim that there’s no case for agnosticism as such.

Makes for a catchy headline though...

Agnosticism may in fact be a philosophical hedge or waffle, but as most people aren't systematic (or even consistent) in their philosophy that's not the point. Seems to me agnosticism is an attitude as much as a philosophy. When somebody claims to be agnostic, it rarely means "I have wrestled with this issue mightily and continue to, yet cannot come to a conclusion and therefore must leave the possibility open." Rather, it usually means "I've never much thought about it much and the question doesn't bother me" or "I guess it's possible there's a god out there somewhere, but as he/she/it/they don't seem to impinge much on everyday life, what difference does it make" or a similar sentiment. Another reason people claim to be "agnostic" is that atheists have a reputation (deserved or otherwise) for being pugnacious and aggressive and unpleasant about the subject, and they would prefer not to be dropped into that camp.

I'd add that as a practical matter there is no difference between agnosticism and atheism when it comes to how people conduct their lives.

Yeah, I noticed that blurring between agnosticism and his definition of atheism -- they actually seem compatible to me, as in a person could qualify as both.

Catchy headline, definitely. IMO, intellectually, he's being a dork. :) Could have saved a lot of trouble by saying 'no, atheism just means this, not that'.

Stuff like this makes it hard to criticize the agnostic as some sort of fence-sitter.

Hey, silent, were you the one I was discussing books with awhile back?

Don't think so, might have been Tom. I'm still paging through Dinosaur in a Haystack in my spare time, considering tracking down the God Delusion...

...to set forth and support a fairly simply premise. But I guess I can’t be too hard on him for that. Occupational hazard and all...

Plus, I guess it pays to keep in mind that an awful lot of folks use “agnostic” more in the ways that o_hellenbach describes in his reply below. Even so, I don’t see much value in defining “agnostic” as narrowly – and dismissively – as Lacroix does. Not if we’re discussing personal philosophies anyway. As you say, there’s a good bit of potential overlap between “agnostic” and “atheist” depending on the specifics of one’s views. And, as o_hellenbach notes, there aren’t necessarily many functional differences between the prescriptive beliefs of many atheists and agnostics.

Seems like a rather needless quarrel to me.