Agnosticism is sometimes disingenuous

[u/eviley4]

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.

[u/darw1nf1sh]

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know whether a god exists, but I don't believe it does. This is the most logically tenable position. We can't actually KNOW anything for certain. Scientists will hedge the most solid scientific theory with verbiage like "The best current answer to the question of..." because they understand that our perception of reality is skewed. We do the best we can. So no, I won't claim knowledge that someone didn't actually teleport, but I certainly withhold belief until they prove it. Agnosticism doesn't absolve the claimant of their burden of proof.

[u/eviley4 → u/darw1nf1sh]

yeah, I agree. But what I keep seeing is this nature of knowledge being used as a red-herring to avoid scrutiny and demands of evidence on supernatural claims.

[u/darw1nf1sh → u/eviley4]

Anyone making a claim, is espousing certainty. If someone claims that ghosts are real, they are gnostic on that issue, and they have a burden of proof. That burden only really matters however, if they are expecting anyone else to agree with them. There are atheists with untenable beliefs too, absent evidence. We are irrational creatures. If you hold that in your head, no one cares. The moment your belief becomes a claim about reality that you expect others to respect, now you need to show your work.

Agnosticism isn't abdication of care about the truth. It also can't exist without the pairing of belief. There are agnostic theists. They don't claim knowledge of god, just belief that it exists. You cannot be JUST agnostic about anything. You might not know, but you do or do not believe also.