The stupidity of Agnosticism

Even Einstein could not justify the Stupidity of Agnosticism

Chapter One–All the Stupid Reasons Intelligentsia Give for Being Agnostic.

Einstein wrote in 1949, “You may call me an agnostic but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.”
That is absurd. One need not be an activist atheist to be an atheist.
How many people in 1949 claimed atheism as their profession in 1949?
Einstein had been raked over the coals by the Vatican newspaper for being an atheist and was dodging that pejorative.

Tyson uses the same flimsy excuse as Albert Einstein to be an equivocating agnostic. They don’t want to be activist atheists but you can be an atheist without being militant.

No, he is just afraid of the word atheist because of the pejorative connotation and what he thinks atheists do.
Just another dumb reason to be agnostic. (from americanatheists)
C: On this episode we have the privilege of speaking with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, director of the Haden Planetarium, host of PBS’ NOVA ScienceNow. The very first topic I want to bring up with you is, [that] you call yourself an agnostic. I know you didn’t go into this – it seems like, on your Wikipedia page, the public first just called you an atheist, and you had to respond to it. And I know you’ve spoken about this before but why is the distinction important to you? Especially as a public figure?

N: Well, I’m not so much concerned with the definition, the formal definition of the word atheist, and the formal definition of the word agnostic. What concerns me is the behavior of people who call themselves those words, because that becomes the definition of the word. Of course, the dictionary really doesn’t define words, it describes the words as they are used in society, and hence you have the evolution of words in the English language. Of course, we know some other languages that don’t tolerate the movement of words from one meaning to another, but in English, that is not only tolerated, it’s in fact ultimately embraced. So, when I see people who say they’re atheists and the energy that they invest in that fact – that’s just simply not me. There’s got to be some other word for someone who really just simply doesn’t care on that level. And so, agnostic seemed to be something a little more accurate given my actual behavior in the presence of these philosophies.

Carl Sagan wrote, “An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence.”

That is the stupidity of agnosticism asking for negative proof. It is the theist who must show evidence. It is an argument from ignorance to ask the atheist to show evidence of make-believe gods

Agnosticism is physically impossible. No agnostic position or method has ever been used in any science. It is a Victorian double talk scam based on the logical fallacy of negative proof; an argument from ignorance. It serves religion by giving superstition respect it does not merit.
God is not unknown and unknowable. That is the primitive definition of fraudulent agnosticism. God is obviously a man made character of fiction and that includes the theist deist god.
No evidence means no god.

Agnosticism exactly fits the description of a pseudoscience. Thomas Huxley purports agnosticism is a method to examine scientific evidence.
It has even deceived scientists like Richard Dawkins (can’t disprove fairies) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (afraid to be a militant atheist).

 Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Although pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, it lacks any of the substance of science.

Promoters of pseudoscience often adopt the vocabulary of science, describing conjectures as theories or laws, often providing supposed evidence from observation, expert testimonials, or even developing what appear to be mathematical models of their ideas. However, in pseudoscience there is no real honest attempt to follow the scientific method, provide falsifiable predictions, or develop double blind experiments. Pseudoscientists often use the tactic of cheating the scientific method. rationalwiki

This is what we know about the pure mendacity of agnosticism.
Thomas Huxley had been arguing with Gnostics who are religious
and just know God exists because they are faithful believers and
just know without evidence.
In other words, pure bullshit.
Huxley invented agnostic meaning without knowledge as a
joke. Dilettantes with lazy minds are easily fooled by logical fallacies
especially concerning religion.

“And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that
conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
Huxley wants negative proof to demonstrate god.

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam
in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims
the truth of a premise is based on the fact that
it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false
because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased
as “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

When Huxley saw others using his idea he wrote a large
treatise on the subject which tells us to be honest.
This was not necessary. We already had rationalism,
uncertainty, lack of knowledge, speculation and
other ways to express the idea of honesty.

Agnosticism was redundant or superfluous from the
moment of its invention as a joke.

There are now one billion agnostics bogged down
thinking god is unknowable when it is obvious from
the many religions we do have that their claims of
magic are bogus fairy tales.

So agnostic is indisputably a joke based on the bullshit
of gnostic. There is no attempt to get evidence. There
is no chance of any logical conclusion. There is no
critical thinking or science.

Gnostic/agnostic is not scientific fine tuning.
It is quackery.

“Dawkins if pressed says he is only “99.6%” sure about the nonexistence of a deity rather than “100%.” He has said he is
a 6.9 out of seven on his scale in The God Delusion.

So that makes Richard Dawkins 100% agnostic and 99.999999% wrong? The world is dealing fideist teenage boys who have been
indoctrinated to believe they will get 72 virgins by becoming suicide bombers. Agnostics, like Dawkins, reinforce their primitive idea that
reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.

We need to eradicate all superstitious religions with education. Give absurd primitive religion all the ridicule it invites and deserves. This make believe garbage should not be passed along to future generations to spill more blood over.

Join the Conversation


  1. My husband and i were absolutely lucky that Jordan could conclude his survey by way of the ideas he discovered from your own web site. It’s not at all simplistic to just always be offering solutions which often some other people could have been selling. So we understand we’ve got you to appreciate for this. The entire explanations you have made, the simple web site navigation, the friendships your site assist to instill – it is most amazing, and it is making our son and our family reason why this concept is brilliant, which is certainly very pressing. Thanks for the whole lot!

  2. Thanks a lot for providing individuals with a very splendid possiblity to discover important secrets from here. It is often very terrific and full of a good time for me personally and my office co-workers to visit your website more than three times weekly to see the latest guides you have got. Not to mention, I am just at all times impressed with all the dazzling inspiring ideas you give. Certain 2 areas in this posting are particularly the simplest I have ever had.

  3. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *