Why Agnostic Atheism may not be the most logical stance.

[jesus_wept]

I'm not really sure what the point the op is trying to make is, is he saying that it's more logical and rational to believe there is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage than it is not to believe because there is a possibility that there really is an invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage?

Although the agnostic adragism position is merely the stance that one doesn't know if an invisible and undetectable dragon exists and doesn't believe one does, in reality it usually takes more affirmations.

Of the affirmations it takes usually is that even if an invisible and undetectable dragon exists, he is not knowable in direct way. The same being true of the soul.

Another thing it does, it denies arguments for the existence of an invisible and undetectable dragon. For example, take the moral argument. Many dragists are convinced morality is such that it must be based on a eternal absolute moral invisible and undetectable dragon that is the perfect instance of goodness or morality, or else morality would be a delusion and not real.

Agnostic adragists tend to want believe in morality and hence don't deny it, at least affirm it on relative scale, at the same time, don't acknowledge the invisible and undetectable dragon so would deny it needs him to be binding and meaningful and authoritative.

At the same time, since adragists don't tend deny the invisible and undetectable dragon being a possibility, doesn't it seem illogical then to say if he exists, he would not directly be knowable or that if a soul exists, we cannot know we have a soul or can't sense, or that if morality is based on a eternal source, we cannot know that as a feature? And if this is possible, and agnostic adragists don't deny it as a possibility, then don't they have to acknowledge it's possible they are taking the irrational stance while dragism would be the rational stance as a possibility? Otherwise, they would have to go into denial of these possibilities being possible? And if they admit it's possible they are wrong, doesn't it mean it's possible they are being irrational in the case they are known to others, and if it's the case, that's it's not knowable, then they are being irrational for not stating it's not knowable but merely taking the stance that it's not known to them (ie. while acknowledge it's possibility)?