No Arteestx, Spang's version is more correct I'm afraid.
It's fairly obvious really, just think about it- Atheism exists only because religion does. But religion doesn't need atheism to exist… In fact atheism is less like an opposite to religion and more like an unusual subset.
-Here we have our sports players, there are the baseball teams, the cricket teams, soccer, chess, basketball, motor racing etc. And over in the corner there are the ones who think all competition is inherently false.
You wonder why they care either way…
Agnosticism doesn't rely on the existence of either.
If atheism exists “only because religion does,” then it would hold equally true that religion exists only because atheism does. If atheism is an opposition of people's learned religious beliefs then religion is an opposition of people's naturally born lack of belief. You're assuming that people automatically are born with the notion of religion and that they must actively reject it, which is just incorrect. Atheism is not defined as the opposition to religious belief, but rather the lack thereof; a godlessness. In that case, we're all born atheists. Animals in nature are all atheists. Agnosticism requires the knowledge that you have options to choose from.