The existence of a thousand false beliefs says nothing about the zero or one beliefs that may be true.
There is no requirement that for one to be true they all must be true.
So that whole line of argument goes "poof".
You can dismiss most of the candidates quickly. A few will require you to do some work.
If there is a correct belief system, then you may eventually find enough evidence to convince you - assuming you want to be convinced. You might not find enough evidence to suit you. Even that proves nothing.
The existence of a large number of friends who cannot explain the reason for their beliefs is likewise not an indicator of anything. There are plenty of us who can. Find one of them.
So no, atheistic agnosticism is not the most reasonable stance to take.
Unless you have done the homework necessary to eliminate all other possibilities.
"There is no requirement that for one to be true they all must be true."
That doesn't make sense they literally can't all be true.
You seem to be confused about what agnostic atheism is. I lack a belief and claim not to know, you seem to think I hold a positive belief that there are no gods.
"Unless you have done the homework necessary to eliminate all other possibilities."
By that reasoning you should believe everything is true until you've proven it false. That is not a good way to determine truth.
No, only agnostics and atheists bear this burden.
Atheists are attempting to prove a negative as the default position.
Most agnostics claim they don't know, then make little effort to find out - thereby proving they have already concluded it is not worth looking. The only way it can be not worth looking is to have already concluded that there is nothing to look for.
If someone has throughly examined all the possibilities and concluded that they still don't know, then it would be reasonable to claim to be agnostic.
It is never reasonable to be atheistic because there is zero evidence for the non-existence of anything.
This is the non-sequitur I was referring to. You claim that the fact that there are thousands of false religions is proof that none of them are true. No. If one is true, I would naturally expect the other 1000 to be false.
There is no non-sequitur since I make no claim and offer no proof. What do you think I'm trying to prove?
All I'm doing is pointing out that mutually exclusive religions exist. I didn't say which is false but only point out that if some are true it would make the others false, meaning one has to be false at the very least.
Religion A says the earth was created by a cosmic turtle 1 thousand years ago.
Religion B says the earth was created by a pixie 5 thousand years ago.
Both A & B cannot both be true. At least one has to be false and possibly both can be false.
"It is never reasonable to be atheistic because there is zero evidence for the non-existence of anything."
That doesn't make any sense. What does evidence for non-existence have to do with this? Where did I claim anything about non-existence. You are shifting the burden.
Again you seem to not understand what atheism or agnosticism is. Please do a little research. I have no burden of proof since I don't hold a positive belief. I sit on a fence claiming not to know the answers while pointing out why the answers of others aren't convincing.
That is the only reasonable position to take.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I was reacting to your quote above that seemed to say that the existence of many conflicting religions implies a godless universe.
I agree that the argument that some try to make that all beliefs are somehow morally equivalent and "why can't we just agree that everybody is right?" makes no sense at all.
I'm OK with true agnosticism - if you are still seeking to gain more knowledge. If you are not seeking, then you are secretly an atheist who merely claims to be agnostic. Clearly, if there is any chance that there is really a Creator who takes interest in His Creation then it would be be the ultimate in foolishness to not bother to find out everything we can about Him.
This is the position atheists place themselves in. They declare without proof there is no God and then run around to forums like this seeking validation from other atheists that they are not making the Biggest Mistake of their Lives. Else why waste their time arguing about it?
Atheism is akin to asserting that there are no Lions in the Serengeti and setting off on a long hike across it with a picnic basket while whistling in the dark. You can't prove there are no lions. Others are telling you that there surely are lions. The burden of proof lies on the person who wants to set out without a rifle.
:o)
Okay I can see why you thought that. From the quote you provided of me. I'm not trying to assert that as an argument or proof for anything. It was more a musing and observation.
"I'm OK with true agnosticism - if you are still seeking to gain more knowledge. "
I add atheism to agnosticism for the reason that I don't positively believe in any of the theistic claims currently being made. I just haven't been presented with an argument or evidence that was compelling enough for me to form a postive belief.
I'm not foolish enough to think I can prove them all wrong and so agnosticism pairs with the atheism in a state of not knowing.