TRTL, "I for one, am an agnostic and have made a choice - that choice is simple - there is no way to prove or disprove god. I will never know,"

Those who believe in God or a higher power aren't about proving or disproving, their acceptance that such exist with out proof is the anchor of their faith. They have chosen a spiritual, intuitive understanding that there is more to the living experience than breathing, eating, and procreating. That you need intellectual assurance and physical proof of the nature and existence of a higher power excludes you from the discussion since it's a matter of faith. Not an intellectual exercise. You do not believe and so you have no faith.
You are trying to assert a position by intellectualizing belief and faith. It can't be done. And to suggest people account for their faith using intellectual argument is akin to demanding the bird if it could talk account for it's intuitive sense of flight. A person of faith will never get any explanation right for you. You have chosen to doubt such an existence. Hence the ummm.

Oliver, Agnostic; a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
So yes. Agnostics can not honestly contribute on the subject of spirituality in regards to any Deity.

"--One must question and hold conclusions tentatively--"

If one questions ones faith and who's hold on that faith is tentative, then I submit that that person lacks faith.
Faith; firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Donnie I judge 1 John 5:4 soley on outcome.

In the thread concerning the article 'Misreported, misconstrued, mistranslated, misunderstood written by Ifran Yusuf. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5533
I responded to a comment claiming agnostic knowledge superiority over atheism. This is not unlike Aqvarius's claim that theists hold a knowledge superiority over agnostics. It seems agnostics are getting a bashing today but I paste my response below because I feel it is relevant here especially to the last few posts. I dropped the poor spiritualists because of the word limit.

"An Atheist is somebody who thinks Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show.

An Antitheist knows Leonard Nimoy is an actor who played a role as a fictitous species known as Vulcan on a television show but is all aware that the purpose for the television series Star trek was to entertain a television viewing audience.

An agnostic is somebody who thinks we can never know if Leonard Nimoy is an actor and we can never know if Leonard Nimoy if he ever existed did play a fictitious species and we can never know if Vulcans are fictitious and we can never know if it was on a television series. Agnostics believe it is better to err on the side of caution incase vulcans are real and they will refuse to beam up non-believers.

Theists believe Leonard Nimoy never existed that it is a belief in science that misguided people come to the conclusion Mr Spock was a character played by an actor. Theists believe Mr Spock is a true Vulcan and we need to have faith in vulcans to be saved by vulcans. The proof is the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck. Theists assert that through the the Vulcan inspired television program Star Treck faith in the series will literally lead us to an ever lasting space journey where we will go where no man has gone before."

Cont'd (dang 24 hour rule)

A much more broad stroke, with say, the energy that is the neurons firing in my brain being part of another brain or even a lightbulb or probably both, is less warm and fuzzy, but a form of immortality I for one take solace in. There's a pretty high chance that at least some of my molecules will form someone else - so yes, in a sense I will be reincarnated. It's something for which I can find support, without having to merely parrot somebody else's thousand-year-old dogma, or concept of what a god is or isn't. Who's to say god even has to be an intelligence? Why not leave it with what we can see, and determine god is simply the catalyst that drives the flow of energy as we see around us? Why the need to attach an intelligence to it?

Is this a spiritual concept? Perhaps not according to a prescribed set of religion notions, but it feels that way to me.

You assume a god and spirituality have to be intertwined. There's your first mistake. You assume agnostics have nothing to offer the debate. There's your second.
I think a debate with solely agnostics would get much further in probing the nature of god than a room full of religious preconceptions.

How can you debate issues of spirituality, when you have already decided which narrow band in which you place your beliefs?

There is a type of reasoning that an agnostic can apply to decide whether to lean towards theism or atheism. I call it the "Best Outcome for the Afterlife Theory" or "BOAT".
One looks at what each option has to offer in the hereafter and decides which course would place them in the most favourable position.
eg.
For theism you basically have a final judgement and a heaven or hell type situation, so if you were a good boy or girl and believed in God you'd go to heaven. If you didn't you'd go to hell.
Then you have a spiritualist type atheism where you keep coming back in different forms and your actions in this life determine your lot in the next. So depending on your Karma you'll either come back as a rock star or a dung beetle.
Then you have materialist type atheism where this one life is all there is baby and you may as well live it up while you can because once you're dead you're just dust and bones, the end.

You could probably break it up more and add other possibilities if you were serious about it.

Given these options, unless you like it hot, the best choice to lead to a most favourable outcome would seem to be: being a good boy or girl to build up some good karma and also believing in God.
So if the theistic scenario turns out to be true you should be well placed for a seat on the heaven bus, if the spiritualist scenario is right then you'll be nicely placed for a cushy next life, and if the materialist scenario happens to be correct then it doesn't really matter what you believed or how you acted does it?

Or Donnie if you back the wrong deity you are as stuffed as those who refuse to worship the moons of Jupiter.

aqvarivs,

I fully agree that I was using the term "agnostic" very loosely. [I almost didn't] Your definition is strictly more accurate, I know.

[Does the God that does exit; exist in a waffer?]

Just the same, I posit that some like Abelard or Luther managed doubt in relation to faith [doctrine] or at least religious teaching differently to say Sells [who never questions], or, St. Paul or Origen, who just make it up. I do think that those theists, agnostics and antitheists whom forensically research divinity do make comment on spirituality.

Sells would see me of his opposite in terms of good [him] versus evil [me]. Alternatively, I see my self involved in knowledge discovery and Sells as knowledge retentive: An explorer vis~a~vis a true believer [in the political sense]. Ironically, he would likely wish me harm, whereas, I would wish him release.

What is god can have wide interpretations, engaged/disenaged, good/bad, anthromorphic/mathematical.

Cheers.

Keiran,

In the middle of data collection for some research. Look forward to reaading the link you sent me. Thanks.

Best wishes.