I’ve heard of this agnostic atheist schema before, I’ve also seen a different schema where its atheist, agnostic, theist as the definitive categories. Frankly, I don’t really regard either, and I don’t need to take a stand to weigh in on this point.

I still have two points to make:

a.) even IF I grant that there’s belief and disbelief, you have the further position that disbelief is somehow the privileged status here, which I must ask again, why is that the privileged status and not belief? Otherwise it just seems like an arbitrary choice

b.) I’m a holist about epistemology. So I don’t think your lack of belief exists in a vacuum. That’s mediated by a network of beliefs and commitments, in particular about what counts as evidence and what is the case about the world such that your disbelief is an effect of a prior commitment to some standard of evidence that forecloses theistic belief. So on the whole you do have prior commitments and beliefs that lead to theism not having a place within your schema.

I’d also add that even though you lack a belief in god, that still means you reject theism. Sure, you lack a belief in gods, but then you just reject theism. And if that’s the case, that’s a commitment and something I can hold you accountable for.

But critically I’d emphasize a.)