Even a scientist wouldn't say "I'm agnostic about the existence of the super natural."
Yes, they would. I actually led a local "journal club" in my own department years ago with about 20 science grad students in attendance about exactly that. We were reading some recent meta-studies about ESP, and I'm pretty down to the person they entered with open minds, considered the data for what it was, and left with mostly equally open minds.
I don't think most would even agree with you that "It's a very likely no." They really shouldn't agree with that. I CERTAINLY do not.
Why? Because how the hell would you ever even approach beginning to place a quantifier on the likelihood of it? There's no basis for doing so. The only way you could BEGIN to quantify the likelihood would be if you had already concretely established exactly how common and how powerful supernatural events must be, if they exist. Then you could start to crunch the statistics of likelihood. But of course you don't have either of those pieces of information. You do NOT know how powerful it would be if it exists, so you don't know how sensitive your measurements would have to be. And you do NOT know how common it would be, either, so you don't have any way to calculate how the number of investigations correlates to a % likelihood of existence.
To claim that you do know a likelihood about this is to make irresponsible conclusions based on assumptions you don't have data for.Also holy shit how are we even on 'science'
It's closely related. Agnosticism is for most intents and purposes basically "science-ism" or "evidence-ism" and agnosticism comes up almost every time anybody mentions atheism, and vice versa.
"It's suuuuuuuuper unlikely god exists, very very unlikely. Almost certainly no god."
This IS faith for the same reasons described above for why you can't place a likelihood on supernatural forces: You don't know how powerful or influential God WOULD be if he exists, and you don't know how pervasive any measurable influences WOULD be if he exists. Therefore you simply do not have the numbers to perform any valid calculations (explicit or intuitive) about likelihoods.
To put it more concretely:
Scenario 1) God left fingerprints everywhere in the universe, and/or actively intervenes on a daily basis. If you knew this to be true, then failure to find any fingerprints or intervention with exhaustive searching you would be able to logically conclude that there is a low likelihood of God existing.
Scenario 2) God has left only 1 or 2 fingerprints that are measurable in the whole of the universe's creation. If you knew this to be true, then an exhaustive search of Earth wouldn't really tell you much at all about the likelihood of God existing. It would lower the likelihood, but only infinitesimally so, because after all, maybe that 1 fingerprint is simply on Mars. Or maybes it's 50,000 lightyears away on some asteroid.
And the simple fact is,
nobody knows whether, if God were to exist, if it would be Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. Your claim in the quote clearly assumes Scenario 1, but you just decided out of thin air that that's what it must be. You have no basis for making that decision in science. Nor does anybody else. Thus, nobody has ANY idea whether a given amount of searching implies that you should lower your likelihoods by a lot or a little.
Thus, somebody being confident about how "there is almost certainly no God" is just talking out of their arse as far as Science is concerned. they may happen to be correct or not, but their belief is purely faith-based, since there's no actual way to know that likelihood from evidence or data in the context of only negative findings.