Even though there is no direct evidence better arguments can be made for the existence of a divine intelligence/creator than can be made for an invisible magic neon dinosaur.
I mean I think it's more intellectually honest to say one is an agnostic with regards to a god but I wouldn't say the same for some one who is agnostic about an invisible dinosaur haha.
I'd say that's only because the invisible magic neon dinosaur is defined relatively specifically, as compared to a generalized intelligent creator. When a theist starts defining their deity in more detail, they run into some of the same problems as one positing my pet dinosaur.
Anyways, I was trying to point out that his statement could also apply to an infinite number of things he doesn't believe in, so it's effectively meaningless.