In my opinion, calling oneself an agnostic is an incomplete description. All it tells us is what the person's position regarding their knowledge claims concerning the existence of gods.
Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief (theism) and disbelief (atheism), as the word is used colloquially.
The formal definition, a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, is a much better definition.
Agnosticism is not some sort of middle ground between belief (theism) and disbelief (atheism), as the word is used colloquially.
The formal definition, a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, is a much better definition.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
