>>12127359Fuck picrel. Agnosticism is literally useless. Nobody takes it seriously in philosophy of religion, because it's not a stance on anything. It's refusing to answer the question. It's okay to say "I don't know what the answer is", but Agnosticism goes one further and claims the Truth to be actually unknowable, in which case why even have religious discussion.
By the way, the "gnostic athiest" is mostly a fiction. Virtually every atheist - yes, even mega basedboy Richard Dawkins - is not proposing they have certain knowledge of God's non-existence, but only that think it highly unlikely that he exists in the absence of proof, a stance which it is totally reasonable to have about any number of other entities (like teapots). Likewise, the "agnostic theist" is kind of out-of-place, yes you can have individual believers who are more agnostic or doubting or whatever, but classical theisms as a rule proceed from first principles and reason to theology, this is a "gnostic" or reason-based process, whether we're talking Jewish rabbinical law, Muslim Sharia, or Christian Canon.
