Agnostics assume that people who say they believe, or know, God does exist or does not are wrong. They say nobody should be taking one side or the other. Assuming such a thing would be dismissing evidence for or against God assuming such evidence exists - and is enough to overthrow belief. Providing evidence to show that the evidence either way is unconvincing is fine.
The complaint that agnostics cannot know enough about the universe and have access to all the evidence is unfair. Believers and atheists have that same issue too. We all simply have to find what evidence we can and draw conclusions. Agnosticism itself is a belief - "right now I don't know what to think about atheism or the reality of a God so I believe there is no way to be sure."
Julian Baggini “claims we cannot know whether God exists and so the only rational option is to reserve judgment.” He adds that is a humble position. But it is not if there is clear proof one way or the other or at least the possibility that there is no rational doubt. Whatever view has the best evidence is the humble position even if it is theism.
We have atheists today who say they do not positively deny the existence of God but see no reason to assert it. They call themselves negative atheists. This seems to be agnosticism under a different name but it is not. While it is the mere absence of belief, it indirectly does deny the existence of God. "I see no reason for believing there is a God. I see no need in me for believing or God." The latter shows that while it is different from direct outright denial it is implied denial. God by definition is all good and puts a need for him in you. If it is not there then there is no God. Your experience is telling you not to believe.
Agnosticism is not agnosticism but agnosticisms for there are loads of possible God variants to be doubtful about. It is simpler to just assume there is nothing. If it is the practical option, that is all you need. Your agnosticism is very wrong if you say nobody knows something just because you don't know it. That's very solipsistic.
If there is a God, no matter how unlikely, agnosticism is trying to do him an injustice. And do it to us too.
How?
There is no relationship with him.
No worship.
But would such a God blame us and feel cheated if we are only going by the best light we have?
Yes if the Christian doctrine that God is able to open the eye and heart of the soul to him is true.
APPENDIX
Agnostics often reject the idea that we can be reasonably confident in the existence of a creator who brought everything into being billions of years ago. But why limit the discussion to that one scenario? There are countless other possibilities — for example, the idea that our memories were implanted by some supernatural being, and the universe was actually created only five minutes ago. Are we all agnostic about that? Not really. Even though such a claim can’t be disproven, most people intuitively dismiss it as implausible and not worth serious consideration.
This raises a question: why treat one unfalsifiable scenario differently from another? Whether it's five minutes or five billion years ago shouldn’t matter if we’re applying the same standard of doubt. Yet agnostics often focus their uncertainty on a specific kind of God — typically, a creator from ancient cosmic history — as if they already have a clear idea of what such a God would be like. That suggests a kind of selective skepticism rather than true neutrality.
In that sense, agnosticism can appear more confused than cautious — and, at times, less honest about the assumptions it makes.