In addition, there's a common misconception that agnosticism is somehow a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details.
This is not a valid argument because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and even the nature of belief itself.
No matter what their reasons or how they approach the question, agnostics and atheists are fundamentally different, but also non-exclusive.
Many people who adopt the label of agnostic simultaneously reject the label of atheist, even if it technically applies to them.
Agnostics making this argument rarely state this explicitly.
It's almost as if they are trying to curry favor with religious theists by attacking atheists, isn't it?
It was not meant to describe someone who somehow found an alternative between the presence and absence of some particular belief.In the end, the fact of the matter is that a person is not faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic.Not only can a person be both, but it is, in fact, common for people to be both agnostics and atheists or agnostics and theists.The only question then is whether they are an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any gods while an agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one god.It is worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic.If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists.Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe.Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.The most precise definition may be that an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." This is not a proposition made by atheists.Being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist.