Dis-information Explosion

Handy though the Internet may be it has permitted a proliferation not just of information but of dis-information, mis-information, and downright stupidity.

Any fool–and this could include yours truly–can now publish their ramblings on the Internet. Any fool can find–courtesy of content-blind search engines–some emotionally appealing theory that fits their prejudices and sneaks past their lack of logic and/or knowledge. The problem, of course, is that few fools, as Giorgio W. Borgia illustrates, know that they are fools.

Once upon a time, editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals determined what information was valid in scientific fields. Nowadays, a proliferation of religiously-biased pseudoscience is foisted onto an already science-ignorant society that lacks sufficient acumen to determine that most of the supposed uncertainty surrounding science has been manufactured to suit religious ends. This is not to say that science has all the answers, but it is to say that denying scientific facts does not constitute evidence that science has found few valid explanations.

Most scientists –Michael Behe is an egregious exception–have not sold out to biased philosophical pretentions that claim to represent genuine science. However, religiously oriented websites and internet trolls abound to glorify creationinsts and promote anti-educational sentiments.

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 claims are made about the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God, so the *falsification* of these claims renders Atheism the most rational conclusion.
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.