Agnosticism is not the middle ground between theist and atheist. Agnosticism dismisses both stances as equally futile. When it comes to god You can not know. And so I walk into a room where a theist and an atheist are trapped, bound to talk round and round for all eternity, and walk out. It’s that simple.
Everything else is up for grabs. I am free to ‘know’ other things in the way everyone else does.
So far, I have said this.
Theism involves belief. Atheism involves the opposite belief. They are however, both beliefs.
Both of these beliefs are based on pure theory and logic, because there is no observable, or testable empiric data that is consistent for all, or available to all. Even after 200,000 years of human exsitence. Please note here, I do not ask about value, or usefulness, both terms which you introduced, I only ask for consistency of experience, consistency of availability.
The realm of pure logic and theory falls under the jurisdiction of falsifiability. If a proposition cannot be proven false by any irrefutable, or even reasonable means, its claim to truth is moot.
Therefore, both beliefs are worthless. Hold either, hold neither, doesn’t matter. Unless of course, simply being seen in society to possess these type of beliefs has worth. But this is socially attributed worth, not worth implicit to the belief itself.
Unlike scientific principles, which even if unfalsifiable at the time of discovery, lead to directly derived applications in the physical world, which are observed to work, and possess consistence both in their generation and effects enabling further reseach and the hope of resolution in the foreseeable future, theistic and atheistic principles have no directly attributable applications in the real world, and thus are stuck. Forever. Barring deus ex machina of course, over which we can have no control, rendering any human effort expended on this topic of discourse, wasted. The bus comes when it comes.
And that’s it.