You wrote:
As an agnostic I can opt out of pointless arguments about something that can't be objectively proved one way or the other, and the existence or non-existence of God, or a god or gods, is something I can't do anything about anyhow. If there isn't one I'll just carry on.
Being an agnostic doesn't necessarily imply any of that. Most atheists I know don't think you can "objectively prove" whether or not a god exists, either. Being an atheist just means that when the question is asked, "Do you believe in any gods?", you answer "no" or perhaps "not enough evidence has been presented."
I could mention how "agnostic" and atheist" describe different things too, but I sense you would not be interested in that.
It would also be helpful if you didn't try to paint the picture that there are unreasonable illogical atheists and unreasonable illogical theists just endlessly debating a question that can't be answered. Are specific religious beliefs helpful or harmful? Do religious organizations enable/protect criminals, or help root them out? Does the conditioning of religious faith make people more or less susceptible to unsupported beliefs like trickle-down economics? All of these have been topics of discussion in this forum, and you are certainly welcome to participate in any/all of them instead of bashing the entire group for getting stuck on the "god vs. no god debate."
= new reply since forum marked as read