Agnosticism is LESS rational than Atheism

"So your stance, if I understand it correctly, is that yes, indeed, the likelihoods of the existences of a Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, unicorns, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters are all approximately equal. Well, see, I do think this stance is frivolous. Do you really feel that this God that we’re talking about, this God that is the basis of three religions that have profoundly shaped western civilization for around 3,000 years, that this God can be dismissed in the same breath as an intellectual prop fabricated by some graduate student? Now, I’m not saying that 3,000 years of backstory means that you must, lemming-like, go along with 89% of the rest of the population of this country and *believe* in God. But, surely you must recognize the difference here between these two hypotheses?

I guess what I’m saying is that, out of respect for the rather large majority of thinking, reasoning, good human beings who believe, I’m willing to go to greater lengths to keep my mind open about the existence of a personal God than that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think the collective belief of millions adds up to evidence that I’m willing to consider despite the fact that it’s not empirical."[s]

Response: Courtesy is fine, but being courteous is not an argument for agnosticism over atheism. The fact that the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God has prospered over unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters speaks only to The Clerical Publicity Machine and is not an argument for the existence of the purported deity claimed by that machine. It’s a fallacious “argument to popularity” to hold that the fact that many have been taught to believe in this Judeo-Islamo-Christian conception signifies that the teachings are valid.

If the prevailing publicity structure had instead insisted upon the existence of the Great Unicorn in the Sky, on which we would all Ride to Heaven, then priests (presumably adorned with uni-horned hats) would be extolling the virtues of this Mythical, Supernatural, All-Loving Creator of Humans.

On the basis of logic alone, it could be argued that the agnostic view, which holds that it simply is not knowable whether or not whatever deity exists, is more philosophically rigorous than stating that there is no God.

However, certain *falsified* falsibiable creation claims are made about the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, so the *falsification* of these claims renders Atheism the most rational conclusion. By corollary, other creation mythologies, as well as the practical need for interventionist deities are falsified by the same scientific findings.

Agnostics resort to Humean skepticism in their arguments that take the position that absolute uncertainty is impossible, so agnosticism is the only correct stance. This argument is problematic. It ignores the original meaning of agnosticism, substituting a circular definition that relies upon the impossibility of absolute certainty. Whatever baseline degree of uncertainty obtains, the same base level applies to all epistemic enquiries. However, not all knowledge is equally uncertain, so it is not useful to tar all understanding with the same brush.

Further, if , at minimum, an uninvolved creator deity existed, then that deity has interacted with the physical world and, so, is necessarily physical. It follows that there ought to be evidence for a deity. The so-called supernatural was invented in order to remove the non-evidence for a deity as far from refutation as possible. Although it would be dissonant for theists and deists to admit that evidence should exist, the apologetic necessity for a supernatural excuse points supports the positive conclusion that no deity exists.

I grow tired of being polite to people merely because they have been brainwashed into collective belief in a non-existent, demanding, invented deity.

From here.