This has been bugging me for a while, and while I don’t want to turn this into something about semantics I think that we should quickly define what an agnostic and atheists are.
Richard Dawkins defines 7 different types of atheist ranging from weak to militant atheists, but along these definitions there appears one definition with a strong resemblance to agnosticism.
To me an agnostic is a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in deity/deities, but there are those who define agnostics as a ignorant who simply just don't care or don't have the intelligence to come to sound conclusion.
An atheist can be a person who disbelieves in a deity/deities based on the current mathematical and scientific understandings of the universe, as well as understandings that can refute certain religions such as the strong influence of Protestantism Christianity in America.
From here I will refer deity as anything ranging Jehovah to a real spaghetti monster, it's not important because a) we don’t know b)for the purpose of this discussion it is not important to define what we believe god to be.
An argument that can be used about a deity is -we cannot prove nor disprove that god exists- this is referred to as a Null Hypothesis, an assumption that we cannot create a hypothesis to prove or disprove this deity. This to me is agnosticism and is more correct than the idea of atheism. An atheist would say that there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that any super being or a particular god created everything therefore believing in such would be illogical, indeed it would, they are right yet they don't see the logical fallacy that disbelieving is as well and that atheists commit by saying this and they make the mistake to assigned this null hypothesis deity/deities to a certain deity written and canonized in the bible. Wouldn't it be more logical to say I don't know.