If we're talking about scientific work then I agree. However, attempting to apply the same scientific rigor to everyday decision making is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. The potential of intuition should be recognized and used. Pattern matching and intuitive techniques is what allowed human chess players to consistently win against alogrithms which calculated every move. The complexity in chess grows exponentially with each move which makes such an approach computationally expensive. The break through was adding a database of preset solutions for specific situations, much like what real chess players do. Well, religion is not unlike this, in that it offers you intuitive solutions to complex life problems. Everything else being equal, a society with religion should outperform one without.

Everyday decision making is not based on scientific theories (not entirely anyway). People use rationale and logic when performing tasks or making small scale decisions in everyday life. But when we're talking about existential questions such as "Why are we here?" and "Where did we come from?" science is the only sure way of knowing the answer. Intuition is good. Scientists use it for ideas and what they think will happen in their experiments (hypothesis). But you can't treat a hypothesis as fact. If your only evidence in something is that you believe it exists, then it isn't fact no matter how much you believe. If our whole perception of the universe was based on believe then little children who really believe that a tooth fairy visits them to give them money in exchange for their teeth would have to be treated seriously when they say they believe in the tooth fairy.

Belief is not enough. And absence of scientific evidence doesn't mean people can fill that gap with belief or faith. I don't know how many times I have to say this but if there is no evidence for something, then it shouldn't be treated as fact. I might decide to pass Dr. Seuss books off as biology books that proof the existence of such creatures as a Yink. But, of course, we all know it's just a children's book based on a mans imagination. He has no evidence for the existence of these creatures so we don't treat those creatures as real or existing.

There's no difference between a theist, an agnostic and an atheist in terms of being able to objectively prove their position. Why such hostility towards agnostics, specifically?

There is a big difference ::)

Theists use their respective religion's theology to explain the universe and all things previously unexplained. That is very subjective. Agnostics don't prove anything. There are a few kinds of Agnostics. None of them prove their point of view. And frankly, I don't believe Agnostics exist; you either believe or you don't. Once you're introduce into the notion of deities you automatically decide (in your mind) whether you believe such things exist or don't.

Not true, both religion and science use logic to test the validity of ideas. An experiment is just a data sample. What you prove or disprove is the hypothesis.

Religion does not use any logic at all. If we talk about Christianity (which I'm assuming you're familiar with) then what logic was being used when they wrote in the bible about a man living for over 600 years? And what logic was used when the Bible stated that the world was split into three races who were all descended from three people who were all siblings? There is no logic.

The logic I think you're referring to is when theists try to use their religious teachings to explain knew things that weren't encountered back when these religions were established. For example, in the age of enlightenment many 'scientists' were using the Bible to determine the Earth's age. They added up all the instances where years are mentioned in the Bible and came up with the answer of somewhere between 5000 and 6000 years. I can understand how they were using logic but this is just an example of how logic isn't always correct. I guess you could say it's only half the formula.

Sure, science uses logic in the same way religion does, as in they both used established rules and laws. But the difference between science and religion in this area is that science goes one step further and tries to prove what they're claiming using objective means. On the other hand, religion uses logic to come to a conclusion and leaves it at that. And the reason for this is because 99% of the time, the conclusions that religion comes up with aren't testifiable. Or they are in fact testifiable, and proven wrong, but people keep believing it anyway.