How does the slam to your "new age commie faggot janitor" support your line of reasoning? Or was that simply intended to provide some sort of comic relief from your totally unoriginal "arguments"?

No one has really brought anything new or interesting to this discussion for hundreds of years as far as I can tell, and random unprovoked personal attacks are neither new nor interesting. You seem to display or at least pretend a lack of comprehension of the fact that a fundamentalist approach is not the only, and is indeed the least sophisticated approach to any mythology. Your argument that a fundamentalist viewpoint is the only valid religious viewpoint seems pretty weak, and is unsupported.

To my mind, and in the minds of many, the value of a religious teaching or story lies in the truth of it's lesson, and it's literal, historical "truth", or lack thereof, is irrelevant. In fact, Joseph Campbell says that to require a literal understanding of any mythology robs it of its deeper meaning.

In order to claim the title "agnostic" one is not required to restrict oneself to a strict materialist viewpoint. This would not be agnosticism, but atheism, or some other "ism" that claims to have the very knowledge that agnostics accept that they do not have access to. I also agree that it is difficult to remain "neutral" as to the likely literal truth of certain "magical" myths in light of scientific knowledge available to us. I don't believe this is required either. But none of this gets us anywhere in answering the questions that really can't be answered.

What, if anything, is the purpose of our existence? Does "God" exist, and if so, what is the nature of God? Is it true that "the mind is meat" or is there more to us, some purely spiritual aspect that exists separate and apart from our physical bodies? These are the interesting questions to me. I know that it is difficult to remain in the uncertainty of negative capability on these kinds of questions, but that is the challenge of being a real agnostic.