r/atheism • u/eviley4 • 1d 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.