It is a fallacy, we agree in that. But it isn't unwarranted and it isn't an unreasonable assumption. I should have said "most atheists I talked to" instead of "most atheists" and I should have made it clear that it is an opinion.
Exactly. That's why Agnosticism is a stronger position than atheism.
Back to the topic: I have offered a hypothesis why there are more atheists than Agnostics (though it was a shot from the hip). What's your hypothesis?
May I offer a hypothesis? I think there are more atheists than agnostics because I see agnosticism as a very flawed position. The guy who coined the term (Thomas Huxley) claimed it is impossible to know either way whether God exists or not.
The problem with this claim is he seems to assume God equals the God of the Bible, ignoring all those other concepts of God that are known to exist. There are those who worship nature, the Sun, even people as real as you and I; there is a sect of Hindu that believe Kumari of Nepal as a God, there are Rastafarians who believe Hallie Selassie as an incarnate of God (Hallie Selassie died in 1972, but Kmuari is still alive today) Now wouldn’t it be foolish to claim it is impossible to know if these people existed simply because there are those who choose to call them God? You can’t make claims concerning the existence of God until it is established which God you are talking about. This is the mistake Huxley made when coining the term "Agnostic".
As an Atheist I recognize what some people call God do exist, but I don’t call them God; I call them something else; I call the Sun a star, nature our environment, Kuari and Hallie people like you and I. I am even willing to consider the possibility that Allah, or Yahweh may have existed as evolved beings from another planet visiting Earth at a time when mankind was primitive and over time the story evolved from visitors, to creators of the Universe.
Anyway that’s my hypothesis shooting from the hip