which makes more sense ? islam(christianity)(judaism)(pro) vs atheism( con)

INTRODUCTIONI'm an agnostic and Pro has agreed in the comments' section that agnosticism could be defended by Con, so my case is that agnosticism is more sensible than the other theological positions.DEFINITIONSIn the English language, the word "sensical[sic]" doesn't exist. The opposite of "nonsensical" is oddly "sensible."More Sensible: Having or showing more good sense or judgment[1].Agnosticism: The belief that the truth values of certain claims such as religious and metaphysical claims are unknown[2].MY CASEA.1-1 Agnosticism as the neutral position.According to the burden of proof, the person who claims that statement P is true is supposed to provide proof for his positive claim. If he fails, then the neutral or default position is to be agnostic or undecided about the matter. For instance, if someone fails to prove that "global warming exists," this doesn't mean that the position to take is "global warming doesn't exist" but rather "I'm undecided/agnostic on such matter until good evidence on whether it exists or not is provided." In other words, agnosticism is the neutral position to take when reasonable proofs are not provided. A.1-2 The Problem of multiple interpretationsSuppose we have many people gathered in a room, and suddenly we get different interpretations from them about a figure walking in.Person A says, "It's a donkey."Person B says, "It's a horse."Person C says, "It's two camels."Person D says, "It's three humans."Person E says, "Nothing walked in."Person G says nothing and remains undecided.Etc...Person G has taken the agnostic position. As long as the suggested scenarios are not supported with good evidence, Person G can rest assured that his agnosticism is more sensible than the rest of the positions. In this debate, I have taken Person G's position. Pro's role is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Islam is a well-supported position, and my role is to undermine his evidence to show that it makes more sense to remain agnostic.A.1-3 Failure of risk-factor analysis for theological positionsRisk-factor analysis is caricatured by some theists through the Pascal wager fallacy that can be summarized as, "It is better to believe in God, since if you're atheist and he exists, you're doomed, but if you're theist and he doesn't, you have nothing to lose." Truth of the matter, this is an over-simplification which takes for granted God's punishment and the existence of an afterlife, when there are almost infinite possibilities of what could happen after death, if anything does happen. For instance, you can be judged by a God who only values skepticism, you can be judged by your mother's ghost on how good you were to others, you can be left alone, you might be judged by a group of aliens on how healthy you were in their simulation, etc. There are many possibilities and so we can't really do a risk-factor analysis for theological positions.The diagram below only shows risk-factor analysis based on what the major theological positions say about the consequences of other positions, knowing that it glances over multitudes of possibilities. A proper risk-factor analysis that evaluates Islam and agnosticism would look like the diagram below but with millions of additional columns. Hence, I posted the diagram here to illustrate that point. Large image: http://i.imgur.com...SUMMARYI've shown that based on the principle of BoP, agnosticism is the neutral/default position to take if certain positions on a matter are not established with good evidence or reasonable proof. I've also shown that a risk-factor analysis does not work here and so we cannot adopt a position without evidence but solely based on risks, as there are multitudes of unknown, possible consequences. Pro's only chance of winning this debate is to support Islam with good evidence, and that is very difficult.CITATIONS[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensible‎[2] "agnostic, agnosticism". OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. September 2012.