OK we can go on one date Larry, as long as you wear a bra to the burger joint you take me to in Ames Iowa and you stop being my follower here. In any case see a physician about the morbid obesity, the OCD and the anger management.

Shove your dictionary up your anus

By inferring logic the idea of religion is immediately thrown out due to its total lack of logic. Therefore the above concept has no meaning.

The word gnosis stands for "to know", you know? The thing about knowing is: either you know or you don't know. It quantized like that. There aint no spectrum.

If you don't know, then probabilitize and logicatize the (perpetually-incomplete ever-expanding) evidence all you want - you still won't know enough to forego doubt.

If a type of evidence that leaves no doubt exists, it's a rare one. If it even exists. Once you've corrected Newton's Laws, Laws that appeared to be valid for every kind of phenonmena on Earth and in the sky for 300 years...well, a thin veneer of doubt is gonna cover every damn fact from now onwards.

No. Verifiable and falsifiable evidence is required.

depends upon what you mean by agnostic i guess? "Gnostic" was originally a slur applied to know-it-all types, and "agnostic" meant more like "someone committed to the middle way," but i don't know about now, as the definitions seem to have got dumbed-down

Agnostics hold no monopoly on doubt....

Nope.
Doubt is healthy.
Believing in gods is not.

logic, etc do not address the emotional need for religion or doubt.

Why would anyone wish to obviate doubt. Doubt is generally a good thing, and the gateway to nuance, which is in turn, the opening to wisdom.

I do not have agnostic doubt. The idea that there are many gods and they come to us by word of mouth or being written on paper seem to be enough to satisfy me. It is man making the effort to be known here. The gods make no effort at all.

You can't use logic to prove that something does not exist. That's the whole problem. You can demonstrate that something is statistically improbable but that has never been an effective way of changing ideas. People still buy lottery tickets.

Maybe not. But a combination of words could…

I don't know whether that is obviously logically probable…

And, to understand the "all powerful " aspect while you have power(free will capabilities for specific example) and I have power then our power is not included in the capabilities of something purported to be "all powerful".

Do you understand you can only, logically have 100% of something and if I have a percentage of power (free will) and you have a percentage of power then that is percentage that the "all powerful " is lacking. So, if we have power then one thing would not be an entity of 'all powerfulness"

I had click to comment but it went below, I am moving this here:

When you talk "gods" as in plural, that is more than one "possibility " existing at the same time and place, then you nullify the omniscient omnipresent logic. Logically, 2 or more omniscient, all powerful could not be omniscient all powerful over each other at the same time and place.

So then what you are left with in the sense of plural gods existing is that they are NOT all powerful.

Then you must understand that we for what we are, we are "gods" we have labeled ourselves gods for 1000s of years. You cannot demonstrate that this is not historical fact, thus, "gods" of a plural variety does in fact exist. Atheism illogical.

No, because it is impossible to demonstrate that no gods exist.

i suppose so, but i never had any agnostic doubt. one minute i believed in some vague, personal, more or less friendly god who didn't do a whole lot but sort of witnessed my unhappy childhood, and the next minute i realized there was no such thing. my "i wonder if?" phase lasted minutes, if that, and the result wasn't exactly traumatic. i wasn't religious to start with, and my religion wasn't christianity to start with. that helped.

g