I'm technically agnostic, but I still consider that based on current data (knowing that 'believers' are not likely to have access to any more data) the theist claims at best explain complexity with higher complexity, which creates and eternal cycle of rising complexity and isn't elegant nor necessary. Though I don't dismiss the possibility, i consider that the claim that it's a 'better answer because science don't know it all' is just plain bad logics.
Then you have all the beliefs about personal "daddy in the sky" god(s). An example i'm well acquainted with: a Monotheistic religion with 3 in 1 gods and lots of mini gods (saints, a certain mother of god) that people pray to more than to the main god yet aren't really gods and all of that having a supposed effect (miracles etc.) that escapes all statistical analysis. Not to mention 'daddy beats you because he loves you' and all the painfully comical hints at the neurological\psychological source of the meme (god is a "He", 'I feel a presence', God=moral code and takes care of you=daddy issues)
Frankly that's just silly. on the 'unlikely' scale it's far less consistent with the observed universe than say unicorns, dragons or flying spagetti monsters.
Yet people tend to assume that if i'm agnostic it means that their claims are somehow just as likely as explanations that actually bother looking at the available data, or that i'll respect their opinion when most of them didn't bother to think it through before invading the noosphere. That's like shitting in people's garden for the simple reason that one has an ass, it's only fine if one lives alone in cave, far from civilisation.
No, I'll argue and maybe call them irresponsible children who shouldn't get a right to vote because they're dangerous for society and the future of mankind. That's independant from wether it's ultimately true or not. Out of a casino there's no value in 'being right' if it was just a random draw.
And that's what theories without an ounce of self consistency or correlation with observed data is: a very anthropocentered self important throw of a 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(...) sided coin with one's eyes closed.
A mathematician wouldn't respect someone who, claiming to be a mathematician him\herself declares, without any justification,that 1+1=3.
A civilized man has no reason to respect someone who, while having or planning to have children uses and lives by and teach them ethical codes and belief systems that are only justifiable if one lives in a primitive tribe in 20 000 BCE.