"God is dead and we killed him"; that's what the atheists have been saying for decades now, as they are proud of their handicraft in "destroying" God because it's profitable. Let's face it, atheists are literally PAID by leftists organizations to destroy the very fabric that woven the West after the Roman Empire crumbled.
And now what do we have? Their wet dreams of course. With their hatred upon the Abrahamic God and their aim to destroy it have been realized, they paved the way to THEIR religion of choice: Marxism. They're so logical, so intelligent, so reasonable, that they decided that the very fabric of culture, society, history and nations have to be destroyed because it is, according to them, also mandated by that old religion because fuck it.
Atheism is a gnostic claim, and therefore simultaneously ignorant and arrogant.
Agnosticism is the more rational position - we lack the ability to observe or comprehend far too much to make a gnostic claim about the origins of the universe or many of its workings.
Atheist make no claims about knowledge. Saying I'm unconvinced of a god is not the same as saying there is no god.
I'm not agnostic on my belief. I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. The same reason I don't believe in bigfoot. Can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, but there isn't reason to believe it does.
Agnostics by definition are atheist. You cannot believe and be unsure at the same time. If you don't believe then you are an atheist. The same way that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
Agnosticism is not about uncertainty, it is about whether you can actually have knowledge of the answer. Agnosticism just outright states that we can't, and should one proceed to claim God exists out of pure belief it would not create a contradiction. Granted, at this point I would make sure to clarify what God really means, because there are definitely certain sets of properties that can be used to define it which are just contradictory (see the famous benevolent omniscient omnipotent trifecta).
I'm not one to argue definitions. Using your own definition if someone believes in god without proof that is not Rational even if you define it as agnostic.
More to the point OP has stated that Dawkins is an atheist. Well Dawkins doesn't fit the definition of atheist if you define it as someone who claims there is no god. There isn't a single well known atheist that makes that claim. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitches, Harris, Dillahunty, Aaron Ra, Maher all take the stance of not believing because of lack of evidence. And I take the same stance. All would be considered agnostic by your definition.
And I think the semantics are moot. OP clearly made claims about atheist with no backing. If you're going to make a claim there should be evidence to back it up.
Yes, it is exactly not rational. Humans in general are not very friendly with this whole "rational thought" thing, so i settle for "non-contradictory".
Stance of "not believing because of lack of evidence" is exactly "there is no god for there is no evidence there is a god". Compare with "there is no need to assume god exists, for there is no evidence he affects anything" of a perfectly 'rational' being. Though i admit, the difference between these two is very subtle.
OP's dumb post is it's own separate story, frankly, given Christianity's rise was not exactly any peaceful or pretty.
Bigfoot, if such a creature were to exist, would do so on the material plane, in three-dimensional space, entirely within the realm of our ability to grasp. A creator that exists outside of space-time as we are able to perceive it is a different matter.
The inability of theist to provide evidence is not my problem. Claiming it's impossible to have evidence for god means you admit you have no rational reason to believe.
I can just as easily say bigfoot is a spaceless timeless creature that exists outside our spacetime. See it's easy just to say stuff. Evidence is the hard part.