Want to be an atheist? That's perfectly acceptable. It's as acceptable and reasonable as someone choosing to be religious. But there's no need to revise history and make unfounded claims in order to convince yourself that you're in the right and somehow enlightened.
Bollocks. The burden of proof is to prove that god exists. As a "rational agnostic" there is not an equal likelyhood of God existing or not existing. That simply isn't true, since there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of God, every day that passes the probability of him existing fades to zero. And even worse he is no more likely to exist than any other crackpot ideas you can think of (Thetans, anyone?).
I agree that it is rational to be agnostic over atheistic, denying the possibility of something we cannot definitely prove is as irrational as believing it is definately true. But when the probability of god is so low that he is no more or less likely to exist than the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible intangible silent unicorn, or Russell's teapot, "rational agnosticism" tends towards very-nearly-atheism to such a point that it becomes a mere semantic difference.
I would imagine that the majority of racists are not the smug closed minded "just a faith in no god" morons you suggest, but very well informed "99.9%-no-agnostic-but-I-call-myself-atheist-it's-easier".
Consider this difference:
If someone proved categorically there was a God tomorrow, the majority of atheists would be eating humble pie and choosing a religion to join.
If someone proved the opposite beyond all doubt, ie. that no god can possibly exist, the vast majority of religious people would reject the evidence and carry on as if nothing happened.
As for the original point, I think it was Bertrand Russell who once said something relevant:
"A good man will do good deeds, whilst an evil man will do evil deeds. But for a good man to do evil deeds requires religion"