Consider the following claim: the universe is filled with blrbles, but blrbles are impossible to detect.
I know I would first ask how the claimant knows of these blrbles if they’re impossible to detect. If no answer given is satisfactory, then I reject the claim. I’m willing to accept that there may be blrbles, but I have no reason at this time to accept that there are blrbles; therefore, I reject the claim since there’s no current warrant to accept it. To say one is blrble agnostic makes no sense. If you’re agnostic because you find it definitionally impossible to know if there are blrbles, then you should either reject the claim outright for being definitionally self defeating or you look at the claimant’s evidence and decide whether it warrants acceptance. Retaining the possibility that there might be proof of blrbles is an admission that currently there is no proof of blrbles and if there is no proof of blrbles, then you can’t accept the claim that blrbles exist and thus, you don’t believe in blrbles.
If your rationale for being blrble agnostic is a difficulty to accept that you don’t currently believe in blrbles, then I suggest you examine what’s at the heart of that difficulty. Do you wish there were blrbles? Did you once believe in blrbles but now realize such belief is unwarranted but still hold out hope that there are blrbles? Do you find faith distasteful and wish to distance yourself from the blrble believers but yet can’t bring yourself to admit or label yourself as one who currently doesn’t believe in blrbles? Do you see non-belief in blrbles as squashing the hope that blrble’s exist? Do you see all blrble non-belief as faith based just like blrble belief? If you’re reason for being blrble agnostic is the last point, then you’re just confused about blrble non-belief for blrble non-belief does not require faith, as I showed earlier. If you’re blrble agnostic for any of the other reasons I listed, then your agnosticism is simply irrational.
I came across this statement in the comment section here:
Because agnostics retain the possibility that one day there might be a proof of deity, it is what stops us from being atheist
I’ve seen this lots of times from self-claimed agnostics, and it reveals a fundamental confusion of what atheism is. If you mistakenly believe that atheists make a knowledge claim like the theist then sure, I get that you call yourself an agnostic but the atheists I know don’t make such a claim. True, there are faith-based atheists, like Buddhists, Raellians or Scientologists, who are atheists as a tenet of their faith. There are faith-based atheists due to gut feelings, reading tea leaves, and a host of other irrational means, too. However, there are atheists who look at claims for the existence of deities the same way I described looking at the claim of blrble existence, and thus hold the same position as you. Like with blrbles, if you “retain the possibility that one day there might be a proof of deity”, then you’re acknowledging that there currently is no proof of a deity. If there is no current proof of a deity, then there’s no warrant to accept the claim that a deity exists. If there’s no warrant, then you can’t accept it and thus, you’re an atheist. If you accept there’s no current warrant yet still prefer to call yourself an agnostic, then I suggest you look at what’s prompting that preference. Like with blrble agnosticism, I’d think either confusion or irrationality.