There is an overwhelming lack of evidence for the tooth fairy, pixies at the bottom of the garden, and the easter bunny however you cannot know that they don't exist. Are you agnostic about these beings?
All are "fairy tales" except the Tooth Fairy. I personally received substantial compensation from the Tooth Fairy each and every time I left one of by teeth under my pillow.
Since we all know money doesn't grow on trees, the only logical explanation is the Tooth Fairy.
"Overwhelming lack of evidence" is an interesting concept. Wouldn't sentient beings living in another star system who have not yet developed technologies that can detect our presence here have an overwhelming lack of evidence that we exist? They might, however, reasonably hypothesize our existence given what they may have learned about the origin of life on their own planet.
My damn-near-certainty that the Easter Bunny, for example, doesn't exist has as much to do with the absurdity of the Easter Bunny hypothesis as it does with the lack of evidence for its existence. I will allow evidence of things that seem extremely unlikely to influence my beliefs (e.g., I'm fairly certain that Donald Trump was president of the U.S. for four long, painful years), but I strive to keep lack-of-belief-in-the-absence-of-evidence as my default setting, particularly when the thing I'm being asked to believe in is just silly.
I guess technically I'm an agnostic atheist on things like that unless you're including strict parameters on them that make them demonstrably false similar to inherent logical contradictions of specific iterations of god, in which case I'd be a gnostic atheist e.g. "The Tooth Fairy provides cash to every child in exchange for their lost teeth" or "the Christian conception of god is all powerful and can create anything".
Plenty of evidence is given to children of these tales, as the parents play the charlatan instead of the pastor doing it for them. To a child who lives under the guise of falsified evidence from the parent, that child lives with what they consider fact. Where is that responsibility? With the parent who lies? With the child who believes? And from there, when does the naive begin to doubt and realize, maybe they don't really know?
Maybe I'm technically agnostic because I don't really know of fairly tales and boogie men. But I'm certainly atheist because I don't believe.
Besides that, I like the quote "believe nothing you hear, and only half what you see". As the prior example in childhood demonstrates, what you see and hear is always filtered through what you were taught, and in that way, it's always tainted with your past. And as we can't get beyond that, don't "believe" anything without seeing it, and then consider it could still be false.
I'm atheist, not agnostic. Another way of saying... in my estimation, I "know" that it's false. So no "belief" or "disbelief" is required. Atheist, not agnostic about these beings.
No, and I don't believe in them because there is no evidence of their existence. Oddly enough, I apply the same standard to any and all gods, and have done so since I was a teenager and hence call myself an atheist. It seems a consistent logical position to me, and I was pleased to discover that many truly greater minds than mine agreed with me, like Bertrand Russell. Of course, it does help when you are not engaging in a subconscious form of Pascal Wagering, living in a thinly disguised fear that a god might get you one day if you're wrong, so better play safe and be an agnostic.
There's more than a "lack of evidence"... there's no evidence whatsoever that these things exist. I find it ridiculous to place everything that we cannot absolutely disprove into some "maybe" category.
Can you PROVE that I'm not invisible and actually standing right behind you right now? Can you prove that goblins don't live under your house? Can you prove that the center of the moon isn't full of creamy nougat? No... but it would be purely idiotic to give these things even the smallest bit of weight. They're silly ideas that can be casually dismissed as nonsense just like pixies and tooth fairies.
Also, pixies and fairies aren't gods or even generally associated with any religion that I'm aware of so the term "agnostic" really wouldn't apply.
I saw my mother going in the garage at age 9 with a bag of toys I asked “Santa” for X mas. that’s when I found out he wasn’t real. And even a couple of years prior to that, I started noticing price tags of department stores we frequently gone to. (Korvettes, Alexander’s, Macy’s, etc.) which started my suspicions.
When I was eight I woke up about 12 am, I went to get a drink from the refrigerator and I saw my mother and grandparents putting together my siblings and cousins Easter Baskets.
And it was only a couple of years after this was when I started getting suspicious about the sky fairy’s existence.
Give it a rest.... I know lies exist. Pretending to be open minded and fair with obvious LIARS or worse delusional people needing psychiatric care 24 / 7 is what your asking us Atheists to do here .....wtf for ??? Making any citation without evidence or honest rational definition DESERVES INSTANT DISMISSAL for the LIARS believers are. Your obsession here leads me to SUSPECT you are a liar believer wanting to fuck an Atheist woman here. Hiding behind dictionaries and fake names does ZERO to build up a scintilla of respect from us real Atheists here
There are lots of beings that could exist despite the lack of evidence for them, such as fairies - belief in fairies is much more respectable than belief in God because they qualifications needed to be a fairy haven't been proved impossible to meet, whereas God's required qualifications cannot be met. For this reason, religious people shouldn't complain when their belief in God is equated with belief in fairies, because that's actually being far too respectful of them. It is only offensive to people who believe in fairies to equate that with belief in a God, so that should never be done.