Atheism is deemed to be liberating, scientific, and open-minded; it couldn’t be anything further than all that.
Liberating! From what? Religion; atheism became a way of life on its own. From the “clutches” of God; what worse feeling to know that your death is your total end. That there is no purpose in life since everything is based on sheer happenstance, nothing is determined or predetermined.
Scientific! How? By ignoring the discovery of the genetic code and what it implies? By saying we have practically proven that there is no God? How can you practically prove something, you prove it or you don’t. In the matter of logic, you cannot prove that something does not exist. That is why in mathematics, proof by contradiction is used to validate theoretical theorems. It’s great for math, but you can’t always translate it to day-to-day life.
That’s why innocent until proven guilty exists in the justice system (for most countries anyway). You can prove that you were somewhere, but you can’t prove that you were not somewhere. All you can extrapolate from this is that you cannot be at two places at the same time; that kind of becomes your proof by contradiction. Let’s say you can’t prove your whereabouts, there are no witnesses, no video footage, nothing; you might be in real trouble because not many people will believe you and they will have their doubts, even if you may be completely innocent. The fact that you cannot prove without any doubt that God exists does not by defacto make him inexistent.
If someone really has a scientific nature, one must follow the scientific method. Start by asking yourself what it is that you want to find out; define your questions. Then research information on the matter (knowledge) from all spheres (not only scientific textbooks); get educated on the matter. Pose a hypothesis, two to be exact (there is a god because so-and-so…; there is no god because so-and-so…). Make an objective analysis on the matter, without prejudice from either side; check out the pros and cons. Finally, form a conclusion. Once the conclusion is attained, one should always requestion his findings; re-evaluate if something else comes up. Science is about knowledge, not championing a point of view such as atheism. At worst, someone who is unsure about the divine can say he is agnostic.
As for atheism being open-minded! It’s limitative! Restraining one’s mind to the realm of tangibility is negating the fact that there are intangibles present like the soul.
Now, as it goes for being Agnostic, it is defined as:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Definition in the online OED
Having no clue is not a reason for not looking into this matter. I mean, if you said that science was based on this logic; you would get kicked out of class with a shoe in your rear end. Yet, a lot of scientists share this view. If ignorance was the motto of mankind, we would still be tilling the land with pickaxes, living in huts, and chewing on leather to make rope. We credit technological progress to observation, research, and vision. So why not apply that same mindset to faith.
Some agnostics are of the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist. Humanity will never possess sufficient knowledge to justify that a deity does or does not exist, that’s why it is called belief… faith. And like we have said before, you cannot prove something does not exist. Therefore, agnosticism is a conundrum, a kind of catch 22, a vicious circle.