If you would like to have a debate on something, make a post and I'll engage you there. This particular post is not pushing any particular belief and I'd like for it not to go down any rabbit trails that distract from it's intended role of poking fun at agnostics.

Note that the only moral to the story is:

• Saying you "don't know" does not absolve you of the risks you incur from not knowing.
• The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk not the person providing the warning.
• You have to decide what negative assurances you need to walk out into the Serengeti having been warned that the opposite of what you hope is true.
• You require 100% proof on the warning side but 0% proof on the assurance side.

This applies to all questions, not just theological questions.