Very wrong. Agnosticism is a statement concerning knowledge while atheism is a statement concerning belief. Therefore, it is quite possible, and in fact common, for an atheist to be an "agnostic atheist" and a theist to be an "agnostic theist".
Agnosticism in not a third choice between atheism and theism. I would imagine that most atheists on this board are "agnostic atheists" meaning that they are without belief in gods but they do not claim ultimate knowledge about reality; they most know before they believe. In other words, a lack of belief in gods is not the same as believing that there are no gods.
This is the brand of atheism that I would label myself as. If you don't want to call it atheism...then we can call it nonreligious but in essence you are playing semantics and when it comes down to it you are just defining a label in a convenient manner for you to deconstruct (strawman).
No... Actually, Agnosticism as defined, comes from two Greek words (a, Ã¢â‚¬Å“noÃ¢â‚¬Â; gnosis, Ã¢â‚¬Å“knowledgeÃ¢â‚¬Â). The term agnosticism was coined by T. H. Huxley, and it literally means Ã¢â‚¬Å“no-knowledge,Ã¢â‚¬Â the opposite of a Gnostic. Thus, an agnostic is someone who claims not to know (a negative proposition). As applied to knowledge of God, there are two basic kinds of agnostics, those who claim that the existence and nature of God are not known, and those who hold God to be unknowable.
The weak form of agnosticism simply holds that God is unknown. This of course leaves the door open that one may know God and indeed that some possibly do know God. As such, this agnosticism does not bump up against Christian theism. The stronger form of agnosticism is mutually exclusive with Christianity. It claims that God is unknowable, that God cannot be known.
Now another distinction must be made then, and that is this: There is unlimited and limited agnosticism. The former claims that God and all reality is completely unknowable. The latter claims only that God is partially unknowable because of the limitations of human finitude and sinfulness.
This leaves three basic alternatives with respect to knowledge about God with regard to the agnostic:
1. We can know nothing about God; he is unknowable.
2. We can know everything about God; he can be exhaustively known.
3. We can know something, but not everything; God is partially knowable.
The first position is agnosticism; the second, dogmatism, and the last, realism. The dogmatic position is untenable. One would have to be infinite in order to know an infinite being exhaustively. Few if any informed theists have seriously held this kind of dogmatism.
However, it can be argued as though partial agnosticism is also wrong. The form this argument takes is that agnosticism is wrong simply because one cannot know something is unknowable about reality without having knowledge about that something. But this is faulty reasoning. There is no contradiction in saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I know enough about reality to affirm that there are some things about reality that I cannot know.Ã¢â‚¬Â For example, we can know enough about observation and reporting techniques to say that it is impossible for us to know the exact population of the world at a given instant (this is unknowability in practice). Likewise, one may know enough about the nature of finitude to say that it is impossible for finite beings to know exhaustively an infinite being. Thus, one holds a controversy only against the complete agnostic who rules out in theory and practice all knowledge of an infinite God.
Complete agnosticism reduces itself to the self-destructing (and self refuting) assertion that Ã¢â‚¬Å“one knows enough about reality to affirm that nothing can be known about realityÃ¢â‚¬Â. This statement is self-falsifying. One who knows something about reality cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And one who knows nothing whatsoever about reality has no basis for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that knowledge of reality can only be purely and completely negative, that is, knowledge can only say what reality is not. For every negative presupposes a positive; one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not and be totally devoid of a knowledge of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“something.Ã¢â‚¬Â It follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating. It assumes knowledge of reality in order to deny all knowledge of reality!
The understanding that there are two kinds of agnosticism brings us to the following conclusions: limited agnosticismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s acknowledgment of finite knowledge for the unlimited (or infinite) is tenable and yet, if they willingly remain static, and they do so to keep from said knowledge (And they do so on faith alone). Unlimited agnosticism, however, is self-destructive from the onset; it implies knowledge about reality in order to deny the possibility of any knowledge of reality. Unless it is impossible to know the real, it is unnecessary to disclaim the possibility of all cognitive knowledge of it or to dissuade men from making any judgments about it.
Unlimited agnosticism is a form of dogmatism. In completely disclaiming the possibility of all knowledge of the real, it stands at the opposite pole from the position that claims all knowledge about reality. Either extreme is dogmatic
. Both are must positions regarding knowledge as opposed to the position that we can or do know something about reality. And there is simply no process short of omniscience by which one can make such sweeping and categorical statements.
Agnosticism is negative dogmatism, and every negative presupposes a positive
. Hence, total agnosticism is not only self-defeating; it is self-deifying. Only an omniscient mind could be totally agnostic, and finite men confessedly do not possess omniscience. Hence, the door remains open for some knowledge of reality. Reality is not unknowable. Therefor Agnosticism defended is a religion, and there is really no such thing as Non-religion, just negative propositions (that still require evidences) promulgated.