standard of evidence

[Rational AKD]

No I don't. I simply have to find that the case for the existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

then how do you show the proposition God doesn't exist is more rational than the proposition God does exist? let me guess... lack of evidence? do I have to say it?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief and disbelief. Agnosticism concerns what is known and/or knowable.

Most atheists do not claim to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist. Therefore, most atheists are also agnostic.

There are only 2 possibilities: theism or atheism.

It's really simple, belief is the psychological state in which one holds that premise to be true.

To be a theist, one has to hold the premise that a god or gods exist is true. ANYTHING else is atheism.

any belief proposing a certainty of more than 50% in truth value and by its nature less than 50% for the negating proposition requires burden of proof. if they are exactly the same in plausibility, you can't say one is more rational than the other. you must say they are equally plausible if both sides have equal evidence or no evidence.