Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?

That would depend on the particular agnostic and atheist; there are also dishonest ways of being an agnostic.For example, consider the agnostic who refuses to say: "There is no God" merely on the grounds that "you can't prove a negative". (I do not mean to suggest that this is our only reason for agnosticism, but consider someone for whom this is the case. In a subsequent post I shall discuss whether or not it is possible to prove a negative.)Now in order to be consistent, this agnostic must also refuse to say that there are no werewolves or fairies or unicorns, on the same basis. And yet I have not seen agnostics behave in this manner, nor do they question the honesty of those who say that werewolves are mythical. And yet intellectual consistency would demand that they should do so.But even if some such agnostic were in fact to assert that he didn't know whether or not there are werewolves, I should still be somewhat suspicious of his integrity unless he also carried an amulet of silver every full moon to ward of the powers of darkness. Yet I have not observed this to be common in agnostics either. When it is a matter of life or death, they behave as though they are quite certain that there are no werewolves. If they refuse to say as much, this smacks of hypocrisy.Now the ("weak" or "negative") atheist seems to me to have the advantage. Having no evidence of gods or werewolves, he asserts both that there are no gods and that there are no werewolves with an admirable consistency; and his behavior is consistent with his professed beliefs.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, there is a difference between gods and werewolves, but I don't see (and you don't say) how this affects the epistemology involved in asserting a negative.This would be up to you to demonstrate. Is there a reason why with respect to asserting the negative we should treat the question of whether there is a god any differently?If not, then the ("weak") atheist, finding no evidence for gods or werewolves is being consistent in consequently saying that there are no gods and no werewolves; it is the agnostic who acquiesces unprotesting in the statement that werewolves are mythical who has some explaining to do.---If anything, God would be at a disadvantage as a result of his differences from werewolves. This depends on your definition of God, but if, for example, the definition includes omnipresence, then to disprove God it would be sufficient to find just one place where he isn't; whereas to conclusively disprove werewolves one would have to show that there are no werewolves in any place. It is actually easier to disprove the existence of a being described by adjectives beginning with "omni-", because then claims about God take the form of a general law which can be overturned by a specific counterexample. This, of course, is the attitude of the "strong" or "positive" atheist.

Yes. Blurple.

So long as one hasn't seen any evidence for anything that one might consider a god, my argument holds.Incidentally, how well-defined is a fairy?

What?

Yeah, pink zebras are noted for their taunting ways. Green zebras are sympathetic and conciliatory.

Does the same apply to werewolves? If not, why not?P.S: The terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" already have meanings. Those aren't them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Are you ever right about anything?

Well, it's still lack of evidence, isn't it? But I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind.If I am unaware that Las Vegas' leading werewolf is called Ronald Q. Shambling, then finding in my front yard a watch with a broken strap and the name Ronald Q. Shambling engraved on the back does not suggest to me that I have been visited by a werewolf. Through my ignorance of werewolves, I have failed to recognize the evidence that is there.

A1: I don't know.Q2: What does this have to do with anything?

And it seems to me not to match what you said. But in that case you would find it "logically invalid" to be a 6 on your scale (i.e. to believe that "the non-existence of werewolves is more likely than not").Now if you can't bring yourself to put the chance of werewolves existing as lower than 50%, then do you in fact carry silver to ward off werewolves?

The evidence is inconclusive. That's why I don't know. No, that's not what it means. Why not cooperate with me by answering my question?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So I have heard it said; by people who behave as though they are certain of the non-existence of werewolves. That's a different kind of question.For example, since I know that you have a height, but have no information about it, I am agnostic about what that height is; I do not assert that you are not 5'9'' on the basis of the absence of evidence.On the other hand, I am not similarly agnostic on the question of whether you have a pet unicorn. I believe that you do not. This is because the evidence that I am missing is evidence against a well-established rule.Now in the case of Franklin's kite, he knew that electricity existed, he knew that everything contains some quantity (possibly zero) of electricity, and so could be agnostic about what that quantity is in the case of lightning.

So I have heard it said; by people who behave as though they are certain of the non-existence of werewolves. That's a different kind of question.For example, since I know that you have a height, but have no information about it, I am agnostic about what that height is; I do not assert that you are not 5'9'' on the basis of the absence of evidence.On the other hand, I am not similarly agnostic on the question of whether you have a pet unicorn. I believe that you do not. This is because the evidence that I am missing is evidence against a well-established rule.Now in the case of Franklin's kite, he knew that electricity existed, he knew that everything contains some quantity (possibly zero) of electricity, and so could be agnostic about what that quantity is in the case of lightning.

What?And, indeed, why?