Is agnosticism more intellectually honest?

Hi, Dr A. I don't know that this is necessarily true: werewolves, fairies and unicorns are a lot more clearly defined than gods are. Since the lack of clarity about the definition of god seems to be a major point of focus for many agnostics, I don't think it's inconsistent for someone to be agnostic towards the general concept of gods while not being agnostic towards specific supernatural concepts like werewolves, fairies and unicorns. Certainly, if a person maintains agnosticism towards, e.g., the Christian god, your argument holds.

Hi, Dr A. I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there.With werewolves and unicorns, it's pretty obvious what evidence would be left behind (perhaps more so for werewolves than for unicorns), so recognition of the evidence is not really a factor.And, it's a fair point about fairies: I'll retract that part of my argument.

Hi, Dr A. If there were werewolves in Las Vegas, don't you think a few things would have been noticed by now? For instance, heightened death tolls and animal-like maulings during full moons, a few eyewitness accounts, people who regularly and inexplicably black out every full moon, etc.Not so for gods: god concepts vary so much that there is no consistent set of evidence like this that would cover the whole spectrum of god concepts.So, I still contend that it would be perfectly consistent for somebody to remain agnostic with respect to gods while not being "agnostic" to werewolves.