I've been wrong before, but I feel almost entirely sure that there is no Santa, there are no unicorns, nessies, sasquatches, miracle diets, Nis Pucks and other elves, no menehune, little people and such, no ghosts, WMD in Iraq, angels, chupacabras, werewolves, grey alien intruders ...
When I suspend my belief until I am confronted with any sort of evidence, am I more unscientific than that large majority, who believes in one or several of these stories despite the nearly complete absence of indications of their veracity?
Or should I treat some man-made fairy tales differently from the others depending on how much their adherents insist it is real to them? Is that more scientific?
Agnosticism (not claiming to know if there are gods) is a natural partner to Atheism (not believing in gods). They are, IMO, in no way exclusive of each other.
Having dinner with Desmond Tutu and Richard Dawkins would be a highlight of my life. Like meeting (surprisingly likable) Eddie Vedder, like sharing my joints with Woody Harrelson when he visited the place he now calls home for the very first time, still lacking connections. Like having an email conversation with Douglas Adams or having a very happy Willie Nelson play for me and a couple dozen other bar patrons on a rainy week-night. (And many highlights that involve awesome people who aren't famous. There seem to be millions of those people.)
So, Richard, Desmond, dinner at my house! If you don't mind, I'll invite Tim too.
We'll just not talk about superstitions.