An agnostic is somebody who claims that one cannot know.
An atheist is somebody refusing to believe in the concept of theistic deity. This is not so much an active act of belief, but the refusal to actively believe. It thus is somewhat passive an act.
Hitchens would also separate the (passive, Skybird) atheist from the (active, Skybird) anti-theist who - according to Hitchens - is (actively) convinced that God does not exist. Such would be a somewhat active act.
But the problem there is that Hitchens probabaly is wrong in this detailed distinction he makes between atheists and anti-theists. As I said repeatedly now and say again here, logic has demonstrated that the non-existence of something cannot be proven for 100% certainty. Logically, that is not possible to be demonstrated.
I changed my mind a bit, since for some time I tended to see it like Hitchens, but I corrected my opinion there.
I now tend to follow Dawkins who said that due to logic demonstrating that the non-existence of something cannot be proven by evidence, an atheist in principle always can only be an agnostic who is 99.99999...% sure that theistic entities do not exist, but you can never be an atheist in the meaning of knowing 100% for sure that theistic deities do not exist. For Dawkins, as for me, the issue is one of probabilities. Is it probable, is it likely that there is a god? I see the chance as infinitely minimal. Because there is no proof or evidence. Because there is no need for a god since he does not add any explanatory value to what we know about how the universe's functions. Because the existence of a god himself also would remain unexplained and his origin again would be object of belief only. And because the existence of a god would even be contradictory to what we have learned about how the universe functions so afar. So, to me everythingn really everything speaks against a god existing. I also do not see it as desirable that the god as depicted in the three desert dogmas, or in the stories about the Rom,an gods, or the narcissists sitting on Mount Olymp, or any other, do exist. I think we are much better off without these sick, deeply disarranged, miserable individuals. Only that the non-existence of something cannot be proven for total certainty makes me stopping short of the 100% certainty mark. I am 99.9999...% sure that gods do not exist.
U-crank has not been the first demanding me to explain what my "belief" is, what my "faith" or "dogma" is. And he is not the first simply ignoring when i answer that I have none. It seems that theistic believers have extreme problems to imagine that there can be people who do not replace theistic belief in some entity with believing in something different, but simpyl are
rejecting to follow the belief in a theistic deity - and maybe defending themselves from being turned into subjects that shall in public space give ground to demands of theistic claims for influence and legislation.
The burden of proof is on the theistic believers' side anyway. They raise the claims that there is a god - so it is up to them to bring up the evidence for their claims. Until they do, things remain to stay the way they have been since 14 billion years: no god to be seen, heared, smelled, tasted, felt anywhere, by anyone. So, the burden of proof is with the believers, not the sceptics. A simple implementation of the originator principle.
I have no "atheistic belief" or "dogma".
I cannot even imagine what an atheistic belief should be. That is like demanding a "bended straight". I fight against religion not because of a dogma that I believe and that demands me to do it. Or because of a faith that I wantg to topple theistioc faith. I fight against relgion because of
self-defence - I do not wish to live under the ruling of a theistically dominated education and legal system, I do not wish believers turning the world around me creepingly into theocracies, and I do not wish to leave children weak and defenceless to the mental mauling and abusing that religion is giving them becasedu their parents got brainwashed as children, too, and thus hand their own kids over to the executioner as well. What the three desert dogmas are doing to children, I rate as a crime against humanity, and one of the most monumental, barbaric and inhumane crimes against humanity it is. The active amputation of the intellect and the mutilation of free independent thought - that is a nightmare of a crime for sure. I dispise theistic religion because it teaches people to be stupid, righteous, intolerant and uncompassionate - and be satisfied with that. So I meet it with the same level of tolerance it meets others - I meet it with no tolerance whatsoever.
So, maybe there is a dogma indeed behind my reasoning, then.
It would be called humanism. Rationality. Reasonability. Kant's Golden Rule. Compassion for the weak and abused who are to be circumcised right between their temples by religion. The desire to know instead of just blindly believe something unproven, untested.
If that makes me a dogmatic person, i will wear this accusation with pride and confidence, and I crave for becoming even more dogmatic, hopefully. In the end, I know that there are things that we do not know. We gain knowledge, and by that also discover new questions. Dressing lacking knowledge into the cloths of belief, does not give us any more knowledge, but is a fantasy. Knowledge that is not known, but believed ("I believe I know that..."), is no knowledge at all - but only completely belief for sure.