One of the many reasons that I don't get involved with apologetics or philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God is that both methodologies in my opinion just lead to circular reasoning with no satisfactory conclusions. I don't think that agnosticism is a reasonable position for the reasons that I will outline here. In this post I will only address two positions; atheism and agnosticism and I will argue for the former as the most logical conclusion.
The encyclopedia Britannica defines atheism and agnosticism as: atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
We know what theism is so we are not even going to waste time on that one. I personally find the last part of the definition for agnosticism as particularly interesting. The position of agnosticism basically states that the question of the existence of God us unanswerable. I disagree with this conclusion simply because it is entirely based on the premise that you cannot prove a negative. The fact that you can't disprove the existence of God does not make it true or even probable that he exists. Doing so is simply jumping to one huge fallacious conclusion based entirely on assumptions.
Stating that God exists basing your conclusions entirely on assumptions as a positive claim without any evidence, that includes circumstantial evidence whatsoever is outright ridiculous. Besides, when it comes to the claim that there is a God the onus is entirely on the theists. Trying to prove what a theist claims as true and real is in and of itself illogical and unreasonable.
It's like me making the claim that a man of his own will and power could fly if he ran fast enough and flapped his arms hard enough. Is it necessary for me to jump from the ledge of a cliff to prove my point? It is quite obvious that we are not biologically built for flight.
Here is my problem with some popular philosophers on this issue: on the one hand they state that religions are man made, and on the other they claim that they cannot prove the existence of God. I don't understand how anyone could make these contradictory claims in the same sentence or article. I am of the view that religious beliefs are entirely man made and a cultural phenomenon. Man created God or gods and not the other way around. Like other ideologies of man religious ideas, beliefs, and views have evolved.
Man has worshiped the forces of nature, animals, imaginary beings, ancestors, and man himself at one time or another. Some of our more ancient cultures have worshiped many gods and have espoused polytheism. The Abrahamic faith most likely started out as a polytheistic religion and eventually evolved into a monotheistic faith. Today's three major religions of the book are based on the Hebrew faith and have evolved into their own belief systems with slight differences. Once you recognize that religious beliefs are man made then it is illogical to then go ahead and claim that you cannot disprove the existence of gods or the biblical God so therefore there must be a least a probability that he/she/it exists.
I personally can't disprove that elves, fairies, gremlins, or even Sasquatch exist. So does it follow logically that there is a probability that they do exist? This to me is just another form of circular reasoning and a very tricky one at that. Going as far back as we could in history to the earliest known religious practices and religions and seeing how they have evolved demonstrates to me without a doubt that these beliefs are false. Faith and so called divine revelation are not a valid means of obtaining knowledge and science has proven this over and over again.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that once you come to the conclusion that the belief in gods or God and religions are all entirely man made there is no other conclusion but atheism. Agnosticism is not an option until the supernatural can be reasonably and conclusively proven to exist. It's not rocket science it's just simple observation and study of what is known about the world we live in.