Agnostics are Believers

[Mithrae]

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is semantics.

Even Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion claims that the probability of their being any sort of god is "extremely small". The same position the OP is claiming is flawed even though Dawkins is renowned for his atheism. For all intents and purposes, every agnostic is an atheist.

There's a pretty big difference between supposing that the probability of there being any sort of god is extremely small (<10%? <1%?) and supposing that probability of there being some sort of god is plausible to probable (30% or 50% or 70%). Dawkins seems pretty firmly in the <1% camp and obviously isn't an agnostic (he thinks he knows with pretty high confidence that there is no god); in fact if I recall correctly he bemoans the fact that the idea of agnosticism exists at all, apparently wanting people to 'pick a side' just as much as religious propagandists do, thereby encumbering themselves with the psychological biases that such side-choosing tends to entail. By contrast someone whose confidence in the proposition "there is some kind of god" is around the 10 or 20% mark presumably is both an agnostic and an atheist by most widely accepted definitions... while trying to tell someone whose confidence is more around the 70 or 80% mark that they're an atheist would be a pretty hard sell, even if they don't necessarily "believe" that there's a god.

Assigning percentages to confidence or 'probability' of a proposition like that is obviously somewhat vague or arbitrary - outside the ends near 0 and 100 a simple five point scale would work about as well - but much less so than a two point scale! The binary dividing line of 'belief' makes tactical sense from the standpoint of religious evangelism (which may be why it's gained traction among many atheists), but not so much for anyone who wants to think with a little more nuance and clarity on a subject.

 

[devildavid]

This is the age-old story of picking sides that has been going on now since the dawn of mankind. The believers want to think and portray it as Matt Dillahunty being stumped by a garden-variety Christian. Matt has done hundreds of debates. He takes on all-comers and does not vett his opponents. He did not know who this guy was and took the debate as a last-minute thing. While he has a call-in show where he accepts calls from anyone and some of the callers are real loons, when he debates, he expects opponents that are of stature such as William Lane Craig to have theology degrees or are priests or apologists.

This guy was an internet shock jock conspiracy theorist who just wanted to engage in personal attacks and make it all about Matt instead of a cerebral discussion of whether or not Christianity or secular humanism is better for society. But that wasn't what the shock jock wanted to do. He wanted to talk about sex by 9-year-olds and transgenders.

Personally, I think that secular humanism has its drawbacks as it does not include morality as a virtue and a better way of life. But to have a premise that Christianity is "true" because it teaches moral values that are good for society is using sleight of hand. When you take the bible in full, it simply cannot be justified., Yes, helping those in need is good. Yes, forgiving others is good, etc. etc. but those things are just copies of what was and is taught by nonbelievers in rising humans, talking snakes, heaven and hell, rising humans, blood sacrifices.

Secular humanism does include morality. That isn’t one of its drawbacks. It derives morality from a different perspective than a religious one.