When you're on no side, you're neither for nor against, then you have an option to look at both the sides and none, even. I am open to any sort of discussions that are religion based. And it's not very difficult to look at the two sides (and still, choose none!)
Agnostics can think about things from either point of view. It means we do not view the world as such a "black and white" place, but more of a "whatever you feel like" way, which means that yes - we are more open-minded. If you have a specific view on something, like whether there is or is not a god, then you may find it difficult to understand the views of someone who disagrees with you, but if you can accept both beliefs, then you see the world both through the eyes of the faithful, and through the eyes of the not-faithful.
Agnostics can usually be very well balanced when it comes to a Divine like force, the Theist believes that the Divine like force is a God/Gods, while the Atheist views it as just the good of heart. Some Agnostics tend to follow a balanced path without the dogma of Religion, and without the limitation of Science in my opinion.
If we are talking about the kind of Agnostic that looks at the God question and says "I do not know, and I cannot know with the limited amount of evidence and intelligence I possess," then that person is both open-minded and truthful.
Most humans cannot bare the fact that we do not know everything so they try to answer every single question about life, even before they have the tools to do so. This is reflected in humans' approach to the God question. Theists and Atheists cannot accept the fact that their intellect is too small to answer the question. Well mostly Atheists. They are the ones who can't let go of their ego. They cannot accept the fact that we don't know, well pretty much anything, about the life we live. They love to hide from the fact that their position on the God question requires faith just as the Theists' does. Deep down, though, they know that they could be wrong. The Atheist could be way off. And if the Atheist approaches the question objectively, with nothing but reasoning, he/she will see reality for what it is. The Atheist will see that this question requires more intelligence to find the correct answer.
The Theists, on the other hand, cannot let go of their fear of the unknown. Pretty much every one has some sort of fear of the unknown, but Theists are the most afraid among us. The thought of their cult-like beliefs having no correlation to reality scares the hell out of them. The thought of the unknown makes them want to roll up in a little ball in an attempt to prevent a nervous breakdown. They cannot compute the possibility that their might be no God(s) and that they might be wasting their lives following a bunch of silly man-made rules.
This faith that both sides hold is disgusting and a disease on the mind. It forces them to be closed-minded and vulnerable to a perception further from reality. This cancer that they hold is an extreme hindrance on progress and human improvement. So yes, Agnostics are more open-minded than Atheists and Theists.
A truly neutral agnostic (neither believe nor disbelieve in a higher power, force or entity, unlike theist agnostics who believe there is a higher force, entity or power and either don't know what it is and/or accept the fact this might be wrong, as well as atheist agnostics who believe that no higher power, force or entity exists although they acknowledge that they could be wrong), I think, would be more open-minded than atheists and theists as they believe that we cannot know without actual proof whether or not a higher power, force or entity (God) exists.
As such, for a truly neutral agnostic, their mind would then be open to the fact that religion and all religions have a possibility of being true, just as a atheists and their beliefs have a possibility of being true. They also believe that both religion and atheism have a possibility of being false/wrong. As such an agnostic is open to considering all the facts and proof and lack of proof for all the 'theories' out there in regards to science, religion and atheism and the fact that none of these theories have as yet been proven or disproven.
I am a neutral agnostic, and I would like to think this is what I believe meaning that I am open minded (or at least attempt to be - I could always be wrong about me and agnostics in general being open-minded). I guess it also depends on the individual as well, and whether they are open-minded or not in regards to their personality and ability to believe and look at all the facts and sides of the debate/argument.
I like to say the following "Religion is human ignorance, atheism is human arrogance." Atheism is turning science into a religion that is worshipped without being questioned. If a religious claim is put out, we all will more than likely question it, but if a scientific claim is put out, we all will more than likely not question it.
As I stated in my supporting headline, fatih is a man made concept. Religion, as defined in Webster's dictionary, is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. A personal God or gods. Agnostics believe that, though it may not be god, there is a higher power. The fact that religion is solely based on one god means that it revolves around one belief, one concept. Agnostics are open-minded because they believe in higher power or powers. Some believe that agnostics are against the belief of spiritual or holy beings, and that they only believe in knowledge and what can be proven, but that isn't correct, they believe in something, someone, anything as a higher power be it seen as holy or thought of as devilish, but they believe in something and something is anything and anything is open.
Being agnostic means that you accept the fact that there is a god or godlike being out there somewhere, but you don't believe that the other religion are one hundred percent right. How do we know if Christianity is the perfect religion when there is things like Hinduism or vice versa? We don't and agnostics are willing to accept that and seek their own truth. Or at least I am. Some might just be indecisive.
Asking "is there a God" is like asking, "is the square root of 100 10?"
It is a yes or no question. Imagine being asked a true/false question and answering maybe. There is a God, or there isn't. It's one or the other, and there are no other answers. It could be argued that we simply do not have enough evidence to make an accurate judgement, but plenty of people think there is, and making a decision on a yes or no question is not being close-minded. I am an atheist, but would be perfectly willing to believe in a god if evidence was presented.
So no, agnostics are not intellectually superior nor hold the logical high ground.
Agnostics are hypocrites. Agnostics will laugh with atheists at many things (aliens abduction stories, conspiracy theories, creationism) but as soon as someone postulates that God (Yahweh) exists, rather than pointing and laughing, agnostics just sit back and wank over their tolerance compared to atheists. Agnosticism is atheism for intellectual cowards.
Why do certain people come to beliefs? They use the evidence they were presented with to makes judgement. While some people are close minded to certain evidence, we all use some sort of evidence either way for our belief. Agnosticism is a stance that you can't know particulars from theist or atheist viewpoints. Some agnostics go to a form of skepticism that is actually very close minded and self-defeating. However, there are a lot of open-minded agnostics. There are a lot of open minded theists who have not found sufficient reason to turn from their beliefs and there are atheists who have not found sufficient reasons to turn from their belief. It doesn't necessarily make either party close minded. It just means that each party has the scale of evidence tipping their way by what they can see.
Saying agnostics are more open minded than atheists is a massive generational. Firstly, agnostics all most always have no belief in god, so can be defined as atheists making this view point illogical. A majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. This means that they believe there is not enough evidence to support the existence of god, so/and they don't believe in the existence of god/s). They don't claim to know there is no god, so are agnostic.
Similarly to agnostics, agnostic atheists, would become theists if they were presented with conclusive evidence of the existence of god/s, therefore how are they closed-minded?
Secondly, while there are some arrogant or close-minded atheist (who are usually Gnostic atheists, a minority of all atheists) there are arrogant agnostics and theists.
This question starts off with an incorrect definition of agnostic right from the start.
Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, not belief. Agnostics say that it is impossible to prove with certainty that a god exists or that the matter is inherently unknowable- it has nothing to do with whether they believe in gods or not. Most atheists are also agnostic. Most theists are also agnostic. The opposite of agnosticism is gnosticism- it isn't a part of the belief spectrum between atheist and theist.
People who use agnostic as some sort of "on the fence" like this are really just either atheists or theists without the guts to admit it.