The Huxley Agnostic

No, it's just most often associated with not having evidence. I'm an agnostic, and I think the Bible is a bunch of nonsense. But, as per my analogy, I'm not going to label myself an anti-alienist, or anything of the sort, regarding Superman. I'm agnostic about the existence of "aliens". I'm agnostic about the existence of "gods". And, you can't prove the non-existence of things with a book. If I write a fabricated biography about you, then you come along and prove it's all false, that won't prove you don't exist. It just proves the book is nonsense.

You seem to confusing not ruling someone else's claim impossible, with personally making a claim something is possible. Huxley was a scientist, who defined agnosticism as faith in the scientific method, and described it as a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. If you think there is falsifiable evidence you can show is false, then you're making a counter-claim, and it's up to you to present your evidence to back up your claim. An analogy to consider, though: No matter how many sci-fi stories (Dune, Superman, E.T., etc.) you can show are fiction, you'll still not have actually addressed the existence, or non-existence, of "aliens". For the very reason a Bible isn't valid testable evidence for the existence of "gods", it isn't valid testable evidence for the non-existence of "gods". While I'm on board with telling someone a Superman comic isn't valid evidence "aliens" exist, you'll lose me if you claim it's valid evidence "aliens" don't exist.