Every debate I witness between an atheist and a theist ends the same; The theist says that we cannot disprove the existence of God, while the atheist/agnostic says that we can't prove his existence either.

This led me to wonder, what is the "smarter" thing to believe? To have strong faith in the existence of something with no scientific and empirical evidence, solely based on religious teachings and texts, or, admitting that you cannot confirm the existence of something based on just sacred texts, due to the lack of empirical evidence and science being unable to answer the question.

In my personal opinion, I believe that the latter is a more logical and sensible belief. I feel that, "we cannot explain this, so therefore God" isn't very reasonable and logical. There are so many things that science is yet to discover, and who knows, that in a million years, we might come to the ultimate revelation of this divine entity.

I would love to hear everyone's different opinions and explanations. What do y'all think?

Please be respectful and considerate in the comments.