While there is still widespread disagreement regarding the existing definition of Atheism, it is normally considered as the "Rejection of belief in the existence of dieties".

One accepted definition of Agnosticism is, "[it] is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." - Rowe, William L.

So essentially it seems like agnostic people are more open minded as compared to atheists and accepting their inability to proove or disproove that God exists. But Atheists says that God doesn't exist. But I've never heard an Aethist said he/she can proove that God doesn't exist. One of many reasons they say for this can relate to "Why should I prove the existence of something which is entirely made up? It's already made up, then what's there to proove in it's existence?"

Which means, atheists (or atleast majority of them) are realists. Because [assumption] most the people won't think about reality at quantum scale and/or cosmic scale while defining it (Subjective reality - If I'm not wrong). But science proves that reality is not subjective, it exists independent of one's power of observation. In that sense, can Agnosticism be considered more rational(based on or in accordance with reason or logic) than Atheism?

*tagging philosohy-of-science because I've mentioned Subjective reality.

While there is still widespread disagreement regarding the existing definition of atheism, it is normally considered as the "Rejection of belief in the existence of deities".

One accepted definition of agnosticism is: "[it] is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." - Rowe, William L.

So essentially it seems like agnostics are more open minded than atheists and accept their inability to prove or disprove that God exists. Atheists say that God doesn't exist. But I've never heard an atheist say he can prove that God doesn't exist. One of many reasons they give for this can relate to "Why should I prove the non-existence of something entirely made up? It's already made up, then what's there to prove in its non-existence?"

Which means that atheists (or at least the majority of them) are realists. Because [assumption] most people won't think about reality at quantum and/or cosmic scale while defining it (Subjective reality - if I'm not mistaken). But science proves that reality is not subjective, it exists independent of one's power of observation. In that sense, can agnosticism be considered more rational  (based on or in accordance with reason or logic) than atheism?