I specifically said that there is "considerable overlap between the ontological matter of a/theism and the epistemological issue of a/gnosticism." So why are you now trying to state the same thing to me?
To show how a position that lacks any prescriptive description becomes an automatic non-discussion point. If a world outlook doesn't manifest any essential or ideal behaviours, it ceases to be a world view (or more accurately, it becomes mere window dressing for what is actually one's world view). Existence is not passive.
Sure, my perspective is one of an agnostic atheist, and when I speak of my own position I am of course speaking exclusively about myself as an agnostic atheist. Would you expect it to be any different? But as also said, my view of the theist mindset, whether agnostic or not, is not something I find easy, if possible, to put myself into to be able to state what lifestyle changes there might be. I thought I made all that quite clear.
Theism doesn't necessitate the belief in an eternal existence under God. Many branches do, sure, but it is not necessary to be a theist. Whether the theist does or not seems to be related to the religion they follow, not theism per se.
At the very least, theism equates to ideas of piety vs sin, liberation vs bondage, Gods will vs the will of humans, etc. It becomes difficult to understand how one could profess a theistic outlook and not address incumbent behaviours of such an outlook (unless they are watering it down to a mere window dressing for atheism, which also has its incumbent behaviours - namely a strict noncompliance with behaviours incumbent on the will of God,etc).
If you want to talk about theism divorced from any specific religion, then you are talking about spiritualism, which is basically a trickle down amalgamation of one or more religions.
As to what you think agnostic theism promotes
Depends entirely on what it is window dressing for. I provided an example where it promoted atheism (despite an apparent external affiliation to a religious institution), although I could just as easily provided an example where it promotes theism. Unless you want to discuss agnosticism from the position of the bipolar, where the determination periodically vacillates from one extreme to the other, agnosticism lacks any incumbent behaviours. So you you have either people who "really don't know" but inevitably default to behaviours incumbent of atheism or theism. So for an agnostic atheist (someone who professes they "dont really know", yet for all intents and purposes acts as if there is no God), the decision to move into fully fledged atheism would not provide any new incumbent behaviours.
- what do you mean by "dedicated to worldly pursuits"?
Where things of this world are the end and everything else, but a means to them.
And what do you consider to be the "prescriptive ideals of theism"?
In a broad sense, this world does not belong to us, and so prescriptive descriptions come forth to explain how to approach this world. Since existence is not passive, we have no choice but to approach this world in some manner or other.
Are you going to actually example any? Or is this simply another case where you say "it's obvious" but never actually provide an answer? It does seem the nature of theists, at least on this forum, to simply seek to dismiss alternative viewpoints with no actual substantive argument.
Please, provide concrete examples, as asked (three times now.
It seems strange that you would ask such a q. Discussion forums like these are stocked to the hilt with dialogues and discussions about how certain behaviours are intrinsic to a godly life vs the rejection of such behaviours. As mentioned already, the very broad categories of piety vs sin, liberation vs illusion etc.
Then I would say your understanding of agnosticism seems rather naive, or perhaps merely warped by your theistic perspective.
On the contrary, if one cannot isolate specific behaviours with one's world view, it is apparent one is not discussing the core elements of one's world view.
