Why Agnostic?

[Ryft]

What are the presuppositions that undergird your specific set of beliefs?

That God reveals himself and speaks with ultimate authority in the Scriptures—transcendent cognitive revelation—the ultimate reference point in predication from which everything else is derived via receptive reconstruction (for we argue from presuppositions, not to them). This is an absolutely loaded and tightly packed presupposition, somewhat analogous to a singularity from which an entire universe springs forth. But when comparatively examined, it is the only presupposition that is able to produce results which correspond with the real experiences of mankind.

What are the presuppositions that undergird your beliefs?

So you think it's an invalid position but also a valid position between theism and atheism? Meh? Could you explain why you think a simple "I believe / I don't believe" doesn't exist? Surely any question involving such statements is an either-or, nothing more.

It makes sense when you go Grammar Nazi on it:

"I don't think agnosticism is a valid position. So, as far as I'm concerned, it is purely between theism and atheism."

If the word 'agnostic' meant "has no knowledge of god," then I would agree that atheists are inherently agnostic. However, the word does not mean that. It never has. It has always meant "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable" (or derived versions of that) ...

The one produces the other. Consider: if it is the case that "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable" (original meaning), then it follows that one can have "no knowledge of god" (another meaning).

I always thought of an agnostic as a chicken shit atheist. HEY! Don't your balls start to hurt riding that fence all the time?

I suspect that a fideist (agnostic theist) would probably scratch her head in bewilderment at being called a chicken shit atheist, given that her belief in the existence of God sort of contradicts atheism.