Ramadan started today

With the exception of Freaky's type of Gnosticism, agnosticismis not a stance on the God hypothesis, I just want to get that out there, agnosticism runs perpendicular to theism, at least by the definition of the word. Gnostic means "knowing", but as theists haven't proven that a God can exist, and the idea of proving that something doesn't exist is preposterous, there is no "knowing". Both sides can say that there is a conclusion which can be drawn from the evidence given, but until evidence appears it is speculation at best. I can say with confidence that, given the information available to me that there probably isn't a God, and a deist can say that there might be a "God" (although probably the physicist's "God" which rules out an interventionary God) and the pantheist can say perhaps there are many Gods, as well as the theist who claims that there is a God, however with no actual evidence an act or profession of "knowing" is a mockery of the word. You can be a theist, pantheist, deist or an atheist and you are necessarily agnostic because you can never know with 100% certainty that there is no God, and outside of meeting the burden of proof and presenting a well thought out case for a God to exist, you cannot claim to be 100% certain of it either. Everyone alive is agnostic on the hypothesis necessarily and by definition (again, not the religious version of being gnostic). As for my conclusions I see the hypothesis cut away by Ockham's razor, a God isn't necessary for the phenomenon we observe to exist and adding unnecessary elements to the theory doesn't make sense.