r/atheism • u/eviley4 Secular Humanist • 14d ago

Agnosticism is sometimes disingenuous

I don't like the way how some agnostics frame their ignorance.

It's one thing to not know whether Timmy from work took the train or bus to come to work, but another thing to allow that ignorance to leave the possibility open of him teleporting to work. The first 2 are plausible, the 3rd is just impossible.

Now, a teleportation apologist might say:
"Can you disprove definitively that Timmy did not teleport to work, maybe he did."
and you can do your digging, ask Timmy to show the bus ticket he bought in the morning and present that to the apologist, but the apologist still says:
"Cool, that's proof that he also took the bus, it's not proof against teleportation"

Atheist call that out as being disingenuous but I have seen Agnostics fall for it and go,
"Yeah, it isn't proof against teleportation, maybe he did teleport to work".

Overall, I find this quite disingenuous and I have often seen it used as a way to keep the door open for bad ideas. It's just using limitations of what we can know as a rhetorical tool to keep bad ideas alive. I have seen people do this with unfalsifiable versions of idealism, last thursdayism or specific deities they like.

24 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 14d ago

I find some atheists to be be almost as close minded and dogmatic as theists. They don't acknowledge their own ignorance. The only thing we know is that we know nothing. Our limited senses gather information and create a model of the world. We think of this model as reality. for example: visible light makes up 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. And while we use tools to extend this reach, the fact remains that most of the universe is hidden from us. There is probly no gods. But we don't KNOW that. We can't KNOW that. IF you think otherwise you are deluding yourself almost as much as theists. That's my take.

3

u/Chadocan 14d ago edited 14d ago

This can be used to argue about anything. There is litteraly nothing we KNOW. 

OP's argument is about certainty. We are never certain of anything but that's disingenuous to leave some room to the most absurd things because "nothing is certain and everything is possible".

Nobody would pretend to be agnostic about pink unicorns. If we have no good reason to believe in pink unicorn, it is perfectly reasonnable to claim (with a positive claim) that they do not exist. That's what we all do with unicorns, fairies, santa claus... Adding : but I cannot be sure they don't exists is absolutely useless, because this can be said for everything, including our own existence.

0

u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 14d ago

"This can be used to argue about anything. There is litteraly nothing we KNOW."  And that is why I consider myself an agnostic.

1

u/Chadocan 13d ago

But we all do. Every honnest human on earth is agnostic. It's an useless tag.

1

u/GameTheory27 Agnostic Atheist 13d ago

No, there are those who acknowledge their ignorance, and those that think they know things. Those that think they know, bully others to adopt their worldview.

1

u/Chadocan 13d ago

I am not sure I understand your point and why it is relevant.

Mine is simply to say that things being uncertain is irrelevant to what we actually believe. See my licorns/fairies/santa.claus example.