While I agree that agnosticism is logically sound, it doesn't directly answer the question of whether god(s) exist. It is very possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist or theist. Russell's teapot is designed to be unknowable, but most would feel it foolish to believe it exists. Thus one can be both an agnostic about the teapot (accepting that its existence is unknowable) and an atheist (believing that it isn't real, in light of the lack of evidence).

Welcome to the third world, where tribal ties are still in play and violence is considered an acceptable means of societal control. The acts of Muslims extremists are pretty much the same as rebels in Africa, Islam just gives an effective point of focus, regardless of its doctrines - this is the same for any other religion. I seriously doubt that if Islam and Christianity's positions were switched - if Islam were popular in the West and Christianity were popular in the Middle East - we'd see an appreciable difference in how the world is today.

Except you just used "ends justifying the means" reasoning to reach that conclusion. The reason why killing 100 world leaders to save 101 farmers isn't worth it is because if 100 world leaders died, quite a few governments would go into chaos, many more would likely die, and so on. Refuse to save 101 third world farmers and you get 101 dead third world farmers. This would be tragic, yes, but not catastrophic. Thus weighing the possible means would justify not killing 100 world leaders. That is, it would seem, your reasoning.

So let's reverse your example. Kill 101 third world farmers to save 100 world leaders. Again, the ends are the same, but now you have to kill people to achieve the more desirable end. People who consider the means would say that the catastrophic situation resulting from the death of 100 world leaders would be worth it, so long as you do not commit an undesirable act.

Now here's my own example: say you have to snatch an innocent old lady's purse in order to save the 100 world leaders. It's an absurd situation, I know, but most of the examples we've given wouldn't happen anyway. So the means is stealing an old woman's purse - most would consider this to be an immoral act. One who does not believe the ends can justify the means would have to concede that because the means are immoral the act is immoral, yet you still end up with the same terrible situation.

If you consider most acts that are widely considered to be immoral individually, they just so happen to have ends that are undesirable. Murder ends a person's life against their will. Theft unfairly takes property from someone who has earned it. Couple this with a general distrust of that which we consider strange (homosexuality, for example), and you can account for why humans consider just about any act immoral.

You have, however, hit upon an important concept: the ends can get extremely complicated as you're given more information. Should you invade country X to stop the leader from killing thousands and generally improve the people's lives? Well then you have to consider the potential casualties on all sides, the probability of success, the possibility that you'll create a situation that worsens the people's lives and kills them faster than before, what an invasion would mean for the other countries in the region, what kind of precedent you've set for future leaders of your country, how other countries will view the invasion and whether you will be able to get their support later when a more urgent matter comes up, and so on. This doesn't invalidate the idea that the ends justify the means, however. It is just something that must be taken with great care, as all moral choices ought to be taken.

Simple economics can tell you why the gas tax holiday is a bad idea. When prices fall, quantity demanded will increase. With higher demand, consumers will bid the price of gas up faster than they would with the gas tax under effect. Then the gas tax comes back, and prices are higher than they would have been if the tax holiday didn't happen.

Plus it's entirely possible for the oil companies to not pass on the savings to consumers, since the tax is on producers.

Plus the government is already in trillions of dollars of debt, so lowering taxes is the sort of thing we ought to do with great consideration.