"I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." If an Agnostic similarly will not confirm or deny the existence of fairies, then you are not Agnostic, you're an Atheist that doesn't like the social repercussions of admitting to be Atheist.
A lot of the "no" arguments I see state that agnostics are not fence sitters because they are waiting on evidence before committing. That is still sitting on the fence. Besides: The evidence IS there, and its definitely making a stronger case against Theism. If you are open to possibility of Deism over Theism, that some vague cosmic entity is out there somewhere, fine, but that doesn't mean you worship said entity or believe it interacted with humans the way the Bible says it does.
Well, you are either a believer or not, period!
How could you not take a stand ? Be brave and say, yes, I am a fence sitter because I can't pick a side. How cowardly is that ? I do not see it any other way, sorry, no can do!
If you consider a fence sitter to be a person who looks at a situation and says 'well, I withhold judgment as there is not sufficient evidence to support this' then sure.
But if you look at the nature of the word agnostic, a-gnostic, to be without knowledge, to not claim knowledge of something, then it is the most rational position.
Granted, if you are an agnostic, chances are you live your life as though you don't believe it anyhow.
I do get that some people use this term as a moral position to seem superior to others, but this seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the implications of the term. This is in similar light to people who see atheism as equivalent to anti-theism.
I don't consider myself an agnostic because "I don't know what to believe". I consider myself an agnostic because I simply don't know what the truth is, and I accept the fact that I probably never will. If I were to join one side or the other, which would require indisputable proof from whichever side, I wouldn't be doing it for anyone else but myself.
A lot of people like to assume that we're just placing ourselves in a "safe zone", which never made any sense to me. If there is no god, it doesn't matter anyway, so I won't suffer for admitting that I really don't know. If there is a god, and it's one of the gods that our various religions comprise of, then someone like me is not safe at all because they're mostly all "believe without a doubt or suffer the consequences"...The one's that apparently have an afterlife paradise, anyway.
So either way you look at it, I'm not going to any kind of heaven unless I actually convert, and like I already sort of said, I'm not converting unless I have some solid proof.
Agnostics tend to be some of the most self-aware and honest people I have ever met. To be an agnostic is not to sit on one's hands. It is to take a stand for themselves. Being agnostic can have slightly different meanings from person to person, but often, agnostics are taking a stand to assert that if the divine is there, it is unknowable at this time. Which, when given thought, is actually a very rational and open-minded stance. If a god is there, who are we to assume we could ever fully understand such a being? Would it not be hubris of the highest level to make the assumption that we can truly know the mind of a god?
Sitting on the fence is by no means a bad thing. Why should you make a decision when to do so either way would be a blind guess and unsatisfactory. It may please atheists or theists depending which side of the fence you fall but it would be redundant to your own personal beliefs because no 'proof' of 'evidence' has arrived to alter your opinion. Agnosticism should be viewed as a third view point that does by no means require us to choose atheism or theism.
Agnostics are people that hold that position that they don't know. This is a perfectly valid position on any number of questions. The word actually means, "without knowledge." Agnostics are often called "fence sitters" as if it is derogatory. There is nothing bad about being honest and saying that you don't know.
There is no way to know for sure what is out in the great beyond. There is nothing wrong with not making a decision on a matter that doesn't affect another. I think it could be more crazy for people make a decision based on a book that is contradictory at almost every turn. With so many religions out there for a group to think they are right holds a lot of arrogance with out proof or thought.
No, they are not fence sitters. Agnostics do not explicitly believe in God, but they are open to the possibility of a God existing. Until God's existence is proved (most likely will not be), they will continue to be skeptical. If there happens to be a so-called Heaven, they can repent because God loves everyone, right?
Scientology is a "religion" founded from a science-fiction novel L. Ron Hubbard wrote. Many feel that it's a joke to base a "religion" on a book. People want scientific proof for most everything now. Agnostics are simply asking where is the "proof" that God or Jesus really existed. Who is to say that the Bible isn't just a work of fiction that people have twisted to believe it is non-fiction? The similarities between chimps, Neanderthals, and man are striking. The belief that some 500-hundred year old man (Genesis 5:32) fathered sons. It's not really believable.
In a way, they are fence sitters, but they are also thinking while they are sitting. I admire their integrity because they do not just do the "leap of faith" that most people require for belief, but are content to give it some thought and refrain from believing something that to them has limited proof. There is no shame in withholding judgement