Thus, the question arises: what is the difference between the type C atheist, as described above, and the agnostic type C? After all, both recognize that there is evidence for the existence of GOD, which cannot be completely disproved, but also cannot be completely proved. But the agnostic take a rational position and understands that the obvious choice, in this case, is to remain in doubt.
Even if agnostics have a tendency to favor one party or another, they understand that this tendency does not necessarily reflect the ontological reality, and for that reason, they suspend their judgment.
Under the circumstances, that's a perfectly legitimate stance to take.
Atheists, on the other hand, pretend to climb all the way back from their personal positions to the ontological claim. They are sure that, if they are not convinced by the evidence for the existence of GOD, then they have a legitimate right to ascend from stage C to stage B (claiming “there is no evidence for the existence of GOD”), and from there to stage A (“GOD does not exist”). And they believe this is rational.
For if they had not pretended to do so, what would be the difference between this person and the agnostic? Had the atheists remained in stage C, at the level of personal decision, they would have to admit that they simply do not know whether GOD exists or not and that their personal inclination on the subject has nothing to do with the revealing of objective truth.
But, because atheists define themselves not as agnostics, but as atheists, they nevertheless try to ascend from their personal inclination to the heights of ontological reality and to determine that GOD does not exist. Because of this, they are as ignorant and arrogant as the same atheist who openly supports the ontological claim on determining the existence of GOD.