The statement shows little sense. How do you justify a lack of knowledge? If I ask a theist to demonstrate how they know something to be true, that is not dogma, it is a genuine request to try to understand why they believe the dogma of their religion. That said, I am not agnostic to the god claims of traditional theism, as I know that the traditional Norse, Greek and Abrahamic gods do not, and cannot, exist in the way in which they are described.

I have no burden of proof to not believe their claims. I will not believe their assertions until they can demonstrate that their assertions are true.

Ought not be arguing over religion in the first place. No one has the least idea of what they’re talking about.

This sounds like a ridiculous argument to me, and it would be exhausting to enter into debating it. You either have faith or you don’t, I don’t . For me to argue why I don’t have faith would not be dogmatic it would be fact. I have no dogma, just a lack of belief ....the dogma must belong on the other side of the argument by definition, as I have no creed or dogma, unless you count incredulity as dogma.

Stephen seems to feel that an agnostic needs to justify their agnosticism. Why? Unless my faith/lack thereof is important to getting a job, getting into school, or getting some other valuable outcome (and I don't know why it would be relevant, except in a few very specific instances, like wanting to go to a religious college or get married in a church), what I believe is no one's business but my own, and I do not owe anyone an explanation of it.

My general philosophy is: You disagree with me? Fine. You want to argue with me? I'm not going to waste my time.