"But in a more important way the statement is false because for all atheists (including agnostic ones) a positive claim actually is being asserted: that “God is not required.”… but he is being asked to prove that God is not required; i.e., that things like truth or knowing or morality, etc., can be comprehended intelligibly under a godless framework while corresponding with and explaining the facts of human experience ."

I think you're right on this point, but you're not stating the whole truth. Theists are equally burdened to prove that "God is required", which, if successful necessarily entails "God exists."

Your mistake comes in thinking that the agnostic position is required to prove "God is not required." The agnostic suspends belief on whether "God is required" or not. He is unconvinced that the evidence he presently has supports theism (not necessarily Judeo-Christian) over atheism or vice versa.

Let me know if this makes sense and your opinions on it.