system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Agnosticism is the only valid stance on the God(s) Question which a rational individual must hold.

Theists and Atheists are equally wrong. Both are self assured in their views which to begin with are based on very limited evidence. Theists spend their time on circular reasoning and conclude that God exists, whereas Atheists spend all their efforts on proving how baseless theistic answers are , and just because they can disprove points made by theists , it ipso facto disproves the existence of God.

Agnosticism is the only viewpoint a rational , thinking , logical person can and should have. Just as a judge must reserve his/her judgement when the evidence and facts are not sufficient to prove guilt, similarly humanity must reserve its judgement until we know better.

Edit : If you're putting forth the argument " Agnosticism is not a stand alone philosophy , and requires either Atheism or Theism to be meaningful , please do not say it as known fact, and explain why you think so too. Thanks.
gpt
Agnosticism isn't a competing theory with Atheism and Theism. You can be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. Gnosticism (not the religion) and Agnosticism are claims about what is knowable, whereas theism and atheism are claims about what is believable. So, for instance, a gnostic theist is someone who both knows and believes that there is a God who influences humans. An agnostic theist is someone who doesn't know whether or not there is a God who influences humans, yet he still believes there is. The same is true for atheism. An agnostic atheist is someone who believes there isn't a God, but doesn't know for sure.

I would suggest that none of these positions are actually valid stances with regards to the question of whether or not there is a God(s) and whether they influence humans. The question itself is meaningless to the degree that it is irrelevant. Given that the question is irrelevant, simply having a position at all is giving it too much consideration. The rational stance to have is one of complete ambivalence. The question can never be answered, so the proper response is to ignore it entirely.

Consequently, the best stance to have is one of apathetic agnosticism. This stance claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. Basically, we don't and can't know, so we shouldn't waste our time caring.