In a perfect world, the only way humans would bother to answer the question “How did my consciousness get here? What will happen to my consciousness when I die?” is by replying “we really don’t know.” That is agnosticism to me.
And so agnosticism seems so perfectly correct in its approach that it seems silly to bother tossing in atheism to make it more specific to contrast an explicitly misguided concept at its core (theism, specifically as it is differentiated from I guess you might say personal fiction). If you’re agnostic, whether it’s gods or flarglethnacks or an endless sea of paperclips waiting for you on the other side, it hardly makes a difference whether you’re “atheist”.
But I get that I’m wishing, and that’s not how things are, agnosticism applied in the context of a world where religions matter, and thus the words have different meaning than I intend.
(edit - I believe it's quite common to think of them as a sort of spectrum from theism, through agnosticism and out to atheism on the other side, and I'm not sure that's wrong for everyone, but there is definitely philosophical space for agnostic atheism, and it may even be the dominant strain. May not of course!)
> Either you don’t have an opinion, or you’re actively of the opinion that other gods don’t exist and you’ll argue with people about it.
I have opinions, as do many agnostic atheists - that there is no evidence for gods, that belief in them is therefore unsupportable and ridiculous, that religions largely are harmful to society and adherents both in conception (because of the requirement for faith and the discarding of reason), and in execution (just look at what organised religion tends to do when enough people follow). Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Richard Dawkins fits into the definition of agnostic atheist, and last I looked he had quite a lot to say on the matter!