Here's my take on it.
Agnosticism is illogical and refutes itself. Agnosticism and agnostics characterize God as unknowable, ineffable, incomprehensible to all attempts to understand him. This doctrine is self-refuting. The agnostic is making a knowledge claim about what he/she claims is unknowable. How do agnostics know that God is unknowable if he is unknowable ? How do they even know that God's existence cannot be disproved if God is unknowable, or that God even exists if he is unknowable ? To claim any attribute for God is knowledge and claims to know this unknowable God possesses certain attributes. That's a logical contradiction, and any being containing two incompatible attributes cannot possibly exist. So one need not resort to agnosticism. He/she would be justified in not believing in that God if the concept of it contradicts itself in any way. One is justified in accepting and adopting the atheist position.
You are not required to give everything that is possible your attention - and you can't, anyway.
Passing judgement on its likelihood means giving it your attention.
The only reason we attend to the God-conjecture is that some people believe it. There is a common perception of God.
Agnosticism does not necessarily mean giving the God-conjecture your attention, and deciding it's unknowable.
It can be simply withholding your attention from the God-conjecture.
You've made a valid and important point. We are not obliged to give equal attention to all ideas. How is the question decided? To me the answer is: Weltanschauung—the worldview in which we are embedded.
For example, the story of the Gadarene swine in the New testament shows that in Jesus's time the notion of demons was taken as the true explanation for extraordinary behavior. No one today gives that idea serious consideration. Is it because we have disproved the existence of demons? No, it's because our view of how the world works has shifted away from the supernatural.
Your choice about what you give your attention to, what ideas to entertain. It's a subjective, interpersonal matter.
Indeed it is subjective and personal, but much of it comes from the ideational environment in which you live.
Terence, Luara said it well.
I withhold my attention from X. Do you deny the existence of X?
Which of us fabricates evidence?
And Anthony persists in dividing the freethinker community....
Anthony says above that agnostics "characterize God as unknowable, ineffable", et cetera.
On the previous page, Dr. Clark provides support for his saying that Christian theologians made that characterization.
Anthony could have asked if agnostics here characterize as he says we do.
He says that to choose agnosticism is illogical. I saw my choice as rational.
"Tactless" describes his method rather well.
"And Anthony persists in dividing the freethinker community...." Tom Sarbeck.
Apparently Mr. Sarbeck has it in for me because I don't conform to the masses.
Anthony, if you knew me, you would know that I too don't conform to the masses.
Your use of the word "Apparently" softens your unsupported charge.
Had you omitted that word, I might have concluded you are paranoid.
"And Anthony persists in dividing the freethinker community...."
I have stressed throughout this discussion that my certainty that there are no gods is my own. My words are not authoritative, I'm no god or religious leader. I've also stressed that new scientific discoveries could come along compelling enough to make me change my mind. I do not objectively know that there are no gods. It is a subjective certainty, and one that satisfies me ideologically.
Everyone is free to his/her own opinion. If someone is not subjectively certain there are no gods that is their own business and they're entitled to think as they choose. As for me, I am (subjectively) certain there are no gods, and as everyone in this community is free to express their views on anti-theism, non-theism, atheism, agnostic atheism, I am free to express my certainty that there are no gods.
As an aside, in some places, if you call yourself an anti-theist, the first thing that will pop into the Christians' head will be Antichrist. In traditional Christianity the Antichrist is the enemy of God and man, and since most Christians believe Jesus to be God, to call yourself an anti-theist is even worse than calling yourself an atheist or a non-theist.
The subjects of atheism and agnosticism come up frequently for discussions here and there is also some heated discussions sometimes on these subjects. I do not see how the group is divided by such discussions. All those who who had heated discussions before are still here.
I rarely ever read every inch of any of the social network's thoughts. I enjoy getting to know people in a good spirited fashion. Personally, this is my favorite. Becoming aware of your statement prompted me to investigate further to see if we had a problem. I have no clue as to the who who aspect of the matter. After stating my views on the subject of the discussion,.....I usually move on . Playing Devil's advocate is part of the appeal for me. I like to stir things up,...just for fun,.. always, just for fun. If there is any serious divisive "heat" , I'll start my on discussion,... like I think I'll do right now ! Thank you, and, good evening.