Agnosticism is an intellectually defensible position.
Atheism is not.
I'd still like to know how atheists believe in "matter in motion".
Rocks, dirt, minerals, etc. don't move on their own. "A body at rest stays at rest" as Newton pointed out.
So what is the source of movement in the cosmos and on earth?
What gives living things the ability to move, but dead things cannot? The chemical composition of a recently dead person and a person about to die is identical, but one can do many things the other cannot. What is the atheist's explanation?
Depends on your definition of 'atheism.' If by atheism you refer to militant atheism, where the possibility that any sort of deity might exist is denied in priciple, then you are correct. But that definition of atheism is a strawman lacking any utility, since few 'atheits' are actually that dogmatic and closed-minded.
The preferred definition of atheism refers to the belief that the evidence for the existence of deity is so weak that it's safe to assume in practice that it doesn't exist, even though in principle (in theory) deity may in fact exist.
A quote I read long ago and have forgotten the attribution:
"Sir, I am not an athiest, I'm an agnostic. I don't pretend to know what many ignorant people are sure of."
An gnostic is just a person too lazy to intellectually defend his atheism.
Godspeed,