Presumably the agnostic is then worshipping Christianity, Islam and Judaism, as well as the entire Hindu pantheon, various African gods, the Rainbow Serpent...

Claims for the defense of agnosticism always seem to be bizarrely certain about which god they can't be sure doesn't exist.

It is just that there are no observations that would suggest any deity. Scientific ones that is, because we are talking rationality.

So anything else than atheism is purely faith-based. Until the moment it does not incommodate me ona personal level (by teaching "equivalent theories" in schools, or forcing me to wear thisor that) I am fine with that.

What do you think about intelligent design sort arguments? It is hard to understand how random variation and natural selection can produce the equivalent of a biological operating system. I have also a fair amount of experience with evolutionary algorithms, and they add to my perplexity as to how random variation and natural selection are sufficient mechanisms to produce the genome, let alone how the whole system would get started in the first place. This does seem to be a pretty good piece of scientific evidence for the intrusion of something entirely unlike any physical process we know of, and capable of feats only analogous to what human intelligence can produce. This seems to me a quite persuasive scientific argument for something deity-ish.

>an atheist insists there must not be.

Wrong... Only so-called "strong atheism" is active belief in gods' non-existence. Regular (unqualified) atheism is lack of belief in gods' existence.

There is a word for "lack of belief"... Agnostic.

In practice, Deism is indistinguishable from atheism. Both claim that the laws of nature explain all observable phenomena.