Why The Things Price Was Costly

vs. agnosticism. Atheism and skepticism

My friend and I discuss the subject more often times what is actually the more rational position: atheism or agnosticism.

The argument for atheism:
There are all sorts of arguments that there is no God, as the theodicy. In addition, we are atheists in respect of all to touch all possible gods (Odin, Vishnu, Aphrodite, ...) - and do not have better reasons not to believe in these gods, as we have not to believe in the Christian God. Things you once could only explain with the help of God, can explain today without, for example, by evolution. One could argue for the existence of a God that would explain a Schoepfergott, why the universe came into being at all. (It would have as it were a cause for the Big Bang.) But actually it moves with this 'statement' the question of cause only a step backwards (What is the reason that there is a God?) And do pretty significant additional metaphysical assumptions to make. So it is most rational to assume that there is no god at all.

argument for agnosticism:
There is actually no viable is sufficient proof that God exists. If one looks at the world, can at least by omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly well recognize much. The theory of evolution rid us of the assumption that there must be a God to tell us. But after all, the adoption of a Schoepfergottes the advantage that we have an explanation as to why at all it all started. Although the moves the question of why only a step backwards, but still! Despite additional metaphysical ballast (in the form of a god) theism is here is not (much) worse off than atheism. So it is most rational, to the question of whether there is a God, not at all defined. Maybe it's a bit more likely that there is none, but you can somehow not really comment.

What do you say?