One sometimes gets the impression that religious and nonreligous people alike consider agnosticism a more rational and sophisticated creed than atheism. On the contrary, agnosticism differs from atheism in name only. The distinction between the two is really about class and politics, not substance.The article continues with some accurate background on agnosticism before it makes a false comparison to atheism.
To maintain his hard-fought respectability, Huxley unveiled the term in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society, an eclectic group of leading believers and nonbelievers in Victorian Britain. He argued that Christians and atheists both shared a belief in the certainty of their views and that this certainty was unjustified. For Huxley, rather than claiming special knowledge, to be agnostic was to profess one’s lack of knowledge.
This seems a novel position only if one understands “atheism” to mean a positive defense of God’s nonexistence. But this wasn’t the meaning that many nineteenth-century atheists accepted.
This is where the writer strays when he says agnosticism is only a novel position if atheism is a positive defense of God's nonexistence. Claiming agnosticism says no such thing about atheism. Atheism is and can continue to be a rejection of God's nonexistence as simply not proven. The burden of proof is on the believer making those claims so atheism doesn't serve as a positive defense with or without the existence of agnosticism.