Thanks for writing a well thought out reply and not trolling me lol. The only worthy conversation is debate, so I am here to debate a few parts of your argument, or at least lay out my disagreement.
I disagree that atheists believe in a lack of gods the same as a religious man believes there are gods. I think arriving at the atheist perspective is a path full of evidence that points clearly to there being no gods. Being agnostic is the stance that since you can't ever know, then why bother pondering it in the first place. Sort like saying that the topic isn't even worth debating. But there is loads of scientific and mathematical evidence pointing to the lack of gods. Read anything by Richard Dawkins and this becomes quite, well... evident haha. Or since reading is a relic now, watch PBS Space Time on YouTube, and view evidence yourself from experts in the field.
An atheist is a person who just has a lower threshold of being convinced by the evidence than an agnostic. While the evidence makes is very very very unlikely any gods exist, an agnostic withholds his final decision because you can't KNOW (like 100%). But since you can't truly know anything, you turn to evidence and likelihoods.
Atheism should not be considered equal but opposite to any belief or faith for those reasons
Cheers
PS- I suppose some might say that there is evidence of gods existing, so this evidence must be weighed against evidence of lack of gods. I argue that there is no scientific evidence for gods to be. This is because evidence of a god existing is non-falsifiable, and therefore not scientific at all.