Faith, Agnosticism, Facts

Just wanted to rant about a perceived fallacy in the disbeliever community - the idea that everyone starts off atheist. 

I find it, under closer inspection, to be false, or, perhaps, a stronger statement than I would prefer to make. It seems to me that everyone starts off agnostic (see definition), emphasis on "human knowledge is limited to experience" and "a person who doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study". In this sense I am an agnostic atheist - I hold that any knowledge of a personal universe-creator can only be empirical and, in the light of absence of any empirical data (facts) pertaining the matter answer "No" to the question "is there a God?" with the same level of confidence as when answering "Are there unicorns?".

Now, supers might deny agnosticism - after all, divine inspiration and revelation could infuse information - knowledge - directly into brains. Not only that, this information could be infused in such a manner, that it would form ultimate knowledge in someone's mind a la The Matrix. But a bright like me will squint and go "Wha? That's impossible!" and rightly so - as far as we can tell, this type of telepathy does not occur.  With this said, I postulate that same as I am agnostic atheist, all believers are agnostic theists (deists, pantheists, whatever), the difference being that I don't fall prey to Pascal's Wager fallacy. 

Consider the opposite - say there are gnostic theists - people who "know for a fact God exists". Why need faith?! If there are facts to be discovered about God, revealed information that can predict something, be verified in a scientific manner (not through another revelation), where are they? And  where are the people who have these facts? Obviously no facts about gods exist and every time someone (Alan Keyes, I'm pointing at you) claims that "God does in fact..." they are, in fact, full of shit.

This is, I believe, that fundamental reason why supers trying to make atheism a religion will always fail - atheism can be true in both gnostic and agnostic scenarios. It is logical to not believe in something both if we just do not know and if we do know that something is not the case. Whereas in a theistic position, only agnostic situation makes sense - one would not need to "believe" in scientific facts of God's existence - accepting them would be a matter of intellectual integrity. 

And this paints a sad picture for the believer - honest theism requires agnosticism and honest agnosticism requires an atheistic position. Yes, "you can't have your cake and eat it too" meets "heads I win, tales you lose".

Lastly, consider the callous pettiness of a personal god that can go "Psst, I'm here, look, I'll telepathically send you ultimate knowledge of Me [the spiritual analogue of an over-sharing Facebook page]" and not "Psst, scientist dude, here, ultimate knowledge of Me, oh, and I sent ultimate knowledge of How the Universe Works as well, just for the lulz". Surely, such a being is unworthy of worship and deserves nothing but contempt.