Humanity is more focused on individual rights and opinions than ever before. This is the manure in which the false dichotemy of athiest vs. thiest worldview sprout from.
This phrase sums up the majority of the many proponents of this supposed dichotemy: "because I have no overt evidence of God, it's a matter of personal belief which determines whether or not God exists, some believe God does, some don't, and I sit on the fence as an agnostic because I believe there's no evidence either way."
However, saying this is akin to saying, because I do not have direct evidence of a murder taking place, there is no such thing as murder itself.
In other words, the comfort zone that agnostics and athiests lodge themselves is non-existent because it only exists when you muddy the waters between God and evidence of God in the universe (this is assuming one already denies the very existence of the universe as evidence). You can find the same denial of the nature of truth in every agnostic, athiestic, and dead religion "world view" delusion.
Even the concept of separate truths and world views and opinions denies the very nature of truth. We've slid deeply into a mess of legalistic quantification where "truth" is defined by a mass of blind persons, none of which has the least shred of real honesty to admit that quantifying anything by their individual, subjective experiences would be quite a bit of assumption mixed with a tiny bit of emotional interpretation. Even if you combine a mass of this it still would not give you substantial evidence to determine truth by subjective means.
Now I know! I know this is a matter of survival, of having no greater means of truth to function by (to you) so calm down. All I'm getting at is this: which is harder to believe: that God exists, or that the desperate denial of the nature of truth by atheists and agnostics will somehow alter the nature of it? If one honestly considers the comparative likeliness then you'll see that the thiest\athiestic dichotemy is nothing but imaginary.