Inkling, if I may, what I think JB is going on about is that humans were designed by space men from the planet Nibiru. So, naturally we didn't evolve.
Yeah, that's the impression I got too.
My point is that someone who replaces one far fetched creation myth
with no supporting evidence for another, can hardly honestly call
themselves "agnostic" in the usual sense of the word.
I guess I should simply ask what exactly JB is "agnostic" about.
I bring this up because worldviews like JB are the reason I am
hesitant to label myself an "agnostic" when discussions of god
come up. I do feel somewhat agnostic as to the existence of
SOME sort of god, simply because I realize how bad humans
are at wrapping their heads around concepts such as space
time, and quantum physics, and how we insist on asking such
"absurd" questions like "what is outside the universe"
So, because I don't claim to understand THESE things, I guess
that makes me agnostic to a sort of "god" that could exist within them.
However, I am worried that if I identify myself as "agnostic" in
conversation, people will assume I am agnostic about things like,
say, the literal God of the Bible.
I am not. The god described in the bible is cruel and absurd and
not worthy of worship even if he did exist.
I am also not agnostic about astrology, homeopathy, the rapture,
Adam and Eve, or magic tricks.
I think there is a wealth of relevant evidence on these subjects,
and that evidence is stacked heavily enough on one side to
come to a reasonably conclusion, i.e. not agnosticism.
So why does it feel so weird when I try to call myself an atheist?
[inkling]