Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Whateverist]

Pretty much only atheists online use that definition of atheism, which pretty much pits them up against a cultural-linguistic wall, mostly because they just want to avoid the burden of proof.

I lack belief in deities. Am I supposed to prove that I lack belief in deities?

No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.

I don't really know how one is supposed to argue that. I disagree that while Thor was a mythic character, Jesus was God almighty made flesh. I believe that Jesus and Thor have exactly the same phenomenological standing, the only caveat being that the former has more active literal believers today than does the latter. But why should that matter? Is there something I owe to xtians just because there are so many of them? I hardly see why. Furthermore I am in no hurry to separate xtians from their belief. Why should I make any case at all against belief in gods?

I do wish MFM would elaborate on why he thinks (if he does) that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in gods. Is it simply semantics? I think I understand what gives rise to belief in gods. I certainly believe in the capacities and tendencies of consciousness to give rise to the perception that gods are real as fellow beings. So sure, I believe they are real experiences for believers; but no I don't believe gods have any existence apart from the forces which give rise to consciousness. Their existence is contingent upon the same brain structures and chemistry which gives rise to us.