Why Agnostic?

[Tiberius]

This is not about something that is empirically measurable, it is about belief and, as such, we are in a very different ball game ... we are still in a two state scenario i.e. you cannot "not know" whether you believe a given claim or not, you either do or you don't. IOW your given scenario is irrelevant to the question at hand ... I suppose I could (but won't since I don't greatly care) even argue that your use of it constituted a strawman.

Again, you simply are not listening.

Agnosticism is not about "not knowing" whether you believe. It is about actually knowing something rather than just believing it. Do you accept that knowledge and belief are completely different things? i.e. that you can believe something without "knowing" if it is the truth?

My scenario was perfectly valid in explaining the difference between belief and knowledge; it was not a strawman. You simply read it with an honestly bizarre misconception about agnosticism meaning "not knowing what one believes".

Accepting for a moment your point that it is possible to view the existence of deity as unknown and unknowable this still leaves us with a person who is either atheist or theist and give that the claim that a deity is unknown or unknowable (one I don't agree with since I see no reason to accept ANY claim that something has no empirical attributes) proves absolutely [expletive deleted] we are left with it being nothing more than a philosophical dodge i.e. the theist or atheist that would like to believe there remains the possibility of such a being yet cannot support it in any way empirically has no choice but to retreat into the psychobabble of modern day philosophy.

It's not about wanting to believe that there remains a possibility, it's a about being intellectually honest. In my opinion, nobody can say "there is a god" or "there is no god" as a factual statement. The being known as "god" has been defined with supernatural qualities, and thus cannot possibly be known empirically (as you observed).

On that note, you contradict yourself. You say you will not accept any claim that something has no empirical attributes, yet this leaves you in a position of unknown as well. So whilst you argue against my point, you seem to actually agree with it.

Not really! Quite simply this explains why I regard the entire idea of agnosticism as wishy-washy rubbish ... it is also the reason (since you evidently do believe it is a valid POV) why I didn't want to continue arguing this with you, why I thought we were done ... we are on different planes, we don't see things the same way indeed in some ways I feel you are closer to Frodo's POV than mine.

Frodo's point of view is that we all have knowledge of God, which is truly bizarre. I argue the complete opposite. It's a puzzle why we are on different planes though; I suspect it is because you have this confused notion of agnosticism that you just cannot let go, and you have certainly proved in your response that you aren't listening to me when I explain the difference between belief and knowledge. If you didn't want to argue this with me, why are you? I admit you're not actually making any worthy attempt to rebut my points, but perhaps you have a problem with "last word syndrome".

Anyway, whether you respond to my points is up to you, but if you do decide to respond, please respond to what I've said, and not just pick things out of it.