Absence of evidence is not proof. Absence of evidence allowed people to think the Earth was the center of the universe.
There are negatives in science. % decrease is negative.
I don’t believe in a supreme being, but the possibility cannot be dismissed without evidence.
Anyone with a grasp of basic logic and critical thinking cannot fail to accept that we are all agnostic. Even Dawkins when pressed on the point had to admit that he himself is.
It's an endless and often frustating and pointless debate though, to have with people who think they are nothing except theist or atheist. Academically and philosophically interesting, but often too emotive and unproductive. I'm happy for people to believe what they want to believe. Both theism and atheism give many people a lot of comfort in this cruel world, and I'm not going to take that away from them.
I know plenty of non-agnostic, and their claims to their knowledge is their book and what someone else else told them, namely their pastor and Sunday school teacher.
There claims are about as valid as an untested hypothesis.
I start by showing them just evil their God is using their own holy book.
But, they already know that I am an atheist and they don't like talking with me about their God or their beliefs.
I don't understand the question. Someone who is not agnostic? Are you talking about religious believers? Or atheists?
I don't know what their claim of knowledge is, either, but asking if it's valid? It is to them. And I would never presume to show them why I think it's not valid. I would respect their right to believe what they want.
I would consider myself agnostic because of science. You don’t eliminate possibilities without proof. I don’t believe that God is a probability, but there will always be a % until proven otherwise. I can prove man made religions are not real, but not the existence of a God like being.