Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Abaddon_ire]

Correct. And If you asked him, he would give that answer. He believes in no god/s, he is unsure/on the fence, or he believes in some god. 

Now ask him. Pin him down for a solid answer. No judgment from here about whatever answer that might be. But plenty of judgment for evading the question.

In any event, you waste time asking me. Ask him. I am not in his head.

Yeah...

While I have had interesting and fun interactions with Bel, he is the king of obfuscation with regards some questions.

It's called "pop-phil". Read Ayn Rand? Think you have the answer to everything. Read Chopra? Think you have the answer to everything. And on it goes.

Bel always reverts to Plato, and aristotle, and Acquinas and such as though no thought of any stripe had occurred in all the intervening centuries. Even though they have. He seems unaware of Hume, or Russell, ar any amount of latter philosophers. Indeed, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and even Hitchens are modern day philosophers. I could go on with a list of present day philosophers.  But why bother? Bel always reverts to Plato and Aristotle. Always. Because he is enamoured of them for reasons unexplained. 

Tough. Aristotle was right on some things and wrong on others. So was Plato. So was Newton. So was Einstein. So was Hawking. So are we all. That is the nature of our daily reality.

But no. Bel wants to put Plato and Aristotle and Acquinas on some imaginary pedestal of his own creation. Because.