Atheism and theism resemble each other strangely.
The theist: « God explains everything. If a thing claims to be independent of God, it has not been created. »
The atheist: « Science explains everything. If something is not explained by Science, there is nothing to explain. »
Bending down to avoid invective, the agnostic asks: « What is it, God? »
You have understood the suggestion of this story. Theist / atheist discord rests on a largely erroneous postulate that there exists a simple, homogeneous, universally accepted definition of God. In reality, humanity hosts as much as individuals. Within an individual brain, mental evolution with age profoundly changes a concept as complex as that of God. We thus almost always witness very local disputes, those in favor of a particular image of God opposing those who refuse it, because they have another contradictory one. Man is basically a believer. Structuring his beliefs around science is another way to strengthen his power over the world. In the theist the power is delegated by the omnipotent image of God. In the atheist it is delegated by the omnipotent image of science. The latter, honestly, is terribly more effective. Nevertheless today science does no better than religion in the theorization of everything (an everything that includes us), in a holistic vision of reality. This brings many leading scientists into very speculative metaphysical considerations. Personal images of God …
The entanglement of atheism and agnosticism, which many atheists claim, is invalid. It is based on the arbitrary separation of belief and knowledge. This distancing does not exist. Knowledge is a structured pyramid floating in the midst of beliefs, but with no precise boundaries between the two. Knowledge is all daughters of beliefs. Incessantly, knowledge returns to the state of belief. Pure agnosticism is the recognition of this blur. It makes the concept of God an undecidable one, which excludes “God exists” as well as “God does not exist”. If an atheist thinks himself agnostic, he should put agnostic first. After all, does he not give priority to knowledge?