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.

IQ Up, Religiosity Down

This comment was posted on a website where an inverse correlation between verbal IQ and religiosity was discussed.

"We all know that correlation does not necessarily indicated causation, though causation may be indirectly linked to the correlation."

My experience suggests several things: higher verbal IQ scores result from interaction of genetic cognitive potential with education, which in turn forces more logical approaches, which in turn reduces religiosity. Since most Westerners are introduced to religious concepts when young, most agnostics and atheists have moved away from religious belief. I think that this directionality does suggest that intelligence (read as logic combined with education) precedes, and hence causes, reduced religiosity.

Most people are not particularly logical, and those with little formal education are the least logical. Those people whom I have known who are both intelligent and religious typically have emotional issues that necessitate a comforting belief system. So, emotionality is a confounding factor, as are early indoctrination and community peer pressure. I think that to tease out the truth about the connection between religiosity and intelligence would require examining all the possible variables and not merely religiosity and verbal IQ."

There's a graph showing the U.S. compared to some wealthy nations and more links here.

Who knows what level of intelligence these folks possess? They ought to be embarrassed about singing such prejudiced, hateful material, but I'm certain that they will not. It is the typical error of those who band together in hatefulness to assume that they take the higher moral ground. This strikes me as one of the perks of religious fanaticism – guilt free obnoxiousness. Jesus would roll in his grave at what has become of his pleas for tolerance.