to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren't really talking about god.

if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that's the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there's proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require "belief", i.e. unfounded assumptions.

as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.