agnosticism isn't a mild version of atheist

I have noticed lately that a lot of people claim to be agnostic rather than atheist, the idea being that atheist are anti-god, anti-religion and just generally hardcore people, while agnostics are open to the idea that god exists but don't really know so don't really believe. It paints those of an agnostic ideal in a very moderate light when compared to an atheist. While sometimes it's nice to be considered moderate, in this case I don't think it's accurate.

First off, the definition of atheist basically refers to someone who believes there is no god or gods, while the definition of agnostic refers to someone who believes that questions about the existence of god or anything metaphysical are unknowable or unanswerable. To me this says that an atheist really only denies the existence of god or an afterlife, while an agnostic denies the existence of anything or even the knowledge of anything that isn't part of reality.

Now I'm gonna steal a quote from a friend of mine that was part of a facebook debate.

"For what it's worth, agnosticism, in my view, consists in rejecting the question "is there a creator" as, not just unanswerable, but unimportant. If there is a creator, then the universe exists just as it does right now. If, going back through time, there is a literally endless chain of evens - and no creator - then the universe exists just as it does right now. There is no explanatory or predictive difference; the question results in pure speculation with no possible answer in principle. "

I like this because not only does an agnostic view these questions as unknowable, they view them as irrelevant because it doesn't apply to the future or even change anything about the present.

So doesn't the agnostic view seem less like a moderate atheist, and more like the hardcore view, it does to me.