Agnosticism, as it pertains to theism (and my interest here is Christian theism), runs one of two ways: 1) the individualist way—claiming to have no personal knowledge as to whether or not God, (or god, or gods, deity, etc.) exists. Others may make such a knowledge claim, but the individual agnostic claims, at least for himself, to have no knowledge; 2) the second way agnosticism is expressed is universality, stating that knowledge claims about deity is impossible for anyone. No one can know if such a thing as deity exists, and those who claim to know are either simply wrong, deceived, or deceptive.
The Left and Islam make strange bedfellows. The former is allegedly the political philosophy of freedom, liberation, social justice, women’s (womyns) rights, LGBT rights, animal rights, and warm puppies (well, Leftists actually are more likely cat people). Islam, on the other hand, promotes Sharia law, limits the role of women in society and the family, would hang gays, lesbians and the transgendered, is against free speech (must not insult the prophet), and is responsible for most death-by-terror in the world. Islam allows for rape, pedophilia, and recruits children as suicide bombers. As I write this, ISIS is demanding Iraqi women undergo genital mutilation.
“No theist can prove the existence of God,” asserts the atheist. But the atheist’s own philosophy doesn’t fare any better: no atheist can prove that God does not exist. When an atheist points out logical inconsistencies, fallacies, faulty arguments, etc., in the theistic approach (and may or may not be correct in so doing), he has still not moved the ball down field one bit toward the goal of proving the non-existence of God. The trouble is, the same criteria demanded of the theist by the atheist must also be demanded by the atheist himself. If it is indeed true that some theistic arguments are unconvincing, one may say only that they are not convinced, not that the point of the arguments have been settled by their lack of success. A person can have a correct position on a subject without being able to correctly argue that position. The truth of the matter stands whether or not it is argued well.