I think that empiricism (the epistemological position that knowledge is acquired through experience alone) implies agnosticism if for no other reason than that it also implies epistemological solipsism (the view that the non-mental is inherently unknowable and one’s own conscious experience is all that one can be certain of) but I think evidence justifies our believing something to be probable or improbable even if we can’t be absolutely certain of it.  I think the way nature appears to behave is evidence for the probable non-existence of a conscious, thinking deity who interferes with human affairs but I don’t think I have any basis for assuming that some kind of supernatural, deistic ‘force’ is impossible or even improbable, I just have no specific reason to believe in it.

The only a priori ‘truths’ I think we can know of in the absence of actual experience are concepts that we define in a way that necessarily justify our assumptions about them, this is how I can ‘know’ that all bachelors are unmarried without having met all unmarried men. Logic is a language that we use to organize ideas and concepts but it doesn’t tell us anything about objective reality, we can’t logically deduce that something as inconceivable as a ‘square triangle’ can’t exist even though it would be inappropriate to define anything as a ‘square triangle’ (because it’s a self-conflicting definition).  With the possible exception of conscious experience itself, which may be an emergent property of the inter-subjectively observable brain activity it appears to correspond with, an inherent property of all matter, fundamentally non-physical or some other possibility (we don’t experience whatever it is that causes subjective experience, only subjective experience itself), I literally cannot imagine a non-physical entity or non-physical phenomenon, I have no point of reference as to what the ‘supernatural’ could be, but maybe it would be possible to come across what appears to be a physical being or physical phenomenon that is in some way a manifestation of something beyond the natural world (or physical phenomenon that doesn’t adhere to the normal laws of physics). I don’t think that a/gnosticism and a/theism deal with separate concerns, as is often claimed, if knowledge about X is just a belief about X that is accurate and acquired legitimately. I also think it’s a mistake to contrast theism (a belief that at least one god exists) with a-theism (just lacking a belief in a god, the default position) as opposed to it’s polar opposite : strong atheism (a  belief that no god exists). 

Marx criticized religion as the opiate of the masses but I don’t see anything wrong with a belief in a compassionate, loving god, who for whatever mysterious reasons allows the suffering it does, being a source of comfort or support. I think basing moral decisions on a god’s authority is wrong. I don’t see what it is about a god’s opinion that would legitimize it’s commandments or why being all powerful would validate it’s authority. An argument for objective moral truths can’t be based on a god’s demands or personal desires anymore than on a parent’s, government’s or any other authority figure’s. If there is a god, or gods, I don’t think that humans are morally obligated to obey them.

-will edit