I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religion

I think my gripe with atheism is that (in my opinion) it’s a shack built up against a building that needs to be torn down. I know that’s not how it is: religions exist regardless of how none of them can provide a proof to base their claims. But atheism doesn’t exist without somebody being theistic. That just seems so, so odd. For instance, nobody can be Aflarglethnackist, because flarglethnacks are extremely undefined, because I just invented the word out of thin air (AFAIK). 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 against an implicitly misguided concept at its core (theism). If you’re agnostic, whether the ‘reality’ is that 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.