If you're going to put something like 'they don't need to make up their mind' etc then save it because I already know that but I have to be able to argue other peoples opinions
If you have to argue that one should make up their mind then you have to show that the question that is answered upon a decision is a necessary one.
Most of those that argue you should make up your mind believe that it is necessary to decide because of morality.
Many atheists suggest that it is intellectually dishonest to claim god exists because they are not satisfied by the evidence.
They claim that it is immoral or leads to immorality to believe in god.
Similarly many religious people believe that belief in god is necessary in order to be moral, and that denial of god's existence is spiritually corrupt and will lead to corporeal immorality.
They already have made up their minds. They've decided there's insufficient evidence for a conclusive decision either way. They take this title to show they care enough to keep an open mind. They are the 'doubting Thomas's'. All they need is proof.
Julian Huxley said religion is a psychological crutch. We need a religion. It doesn't matter what it is, it could be Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian or the big rocks worshipped by stone age people. Agnostics may recognise this need that people may have, but may struggle to say one religion has stronger claims for being true than others. The fact that religion has convinced so many millions of people for so many thousands of years suggests either a very strong human need, or the chance that it may be true after all.
Societal cohesion demands a force other than military or rulers or democratic governments. Religion has provided this. As such it may be vital for communities to survive. Agnostics may go along with religious conventions they don't believe in because they believe in the framework they provide, even if not in the deity at the top.
Argument: The belief that it is impossible whether to know that there is or isnt a god is not a very helpful belief.
It's impossible to know anything for sure, or to prove it. The Queen of England may be a reptilian. It may be physically possible for ghosts to exist. Maybe everything around you is a delusion (this seems far fetched, but think schizophrenics, think science fiction).
The point is- it's not very helpful or productive for an individual to say 'We don't know that FOR SURE.' It's just not a good way to approach things. This approach cannot be considered as being open minded.
Personally, I know that I'd much rather have my mind made up on things rather than to constantly say 'I'm not sure.' As human beings we like to be sure--- we like to have a reason behind everything we do, we like to find meaning, we want life to be predictable. For eg When somebody is dying, it would be more comforting for him to be a Christian and to believe that he'll be going to heaven, or to be an atheist and believe that there will be nothing after life, than to be AGNOSTIC and just be UNSURE.
With no proof either way,their approach seems to be the most rational.Believing in God demands blind faith.Denying God assumes you have the answers to the universe.So they put forth that they believe there most likely is a power greater than man,but don't go so far as to claim to poses that answer.Einstein claimed the same theory.That there must be a greater power but he could not come to a conclusion.You propose people concluded one way or the other all though they say they don't know.If the existence of or the absence of God can be proved the world is all ears.Believe(faith) is what you choose to do.That is proof of nothing.
You can always point out that they are a human being with as much of an unique mind as the other person.
Religion is completely personal, and no one should have the right to tell you if you, how much or in what you believe (as long as it doesn't insult or hurt anyone, i guess). If they are agnostic, searching or just taking more time to "make up their mind", it's their business. Does it make them a bad person? No.
You can point out that they might have problem to see everything that Christians does and that's why they are questioning so much. "Is it really true that Jesus turn water to wine, or is it just a myth or maybe it was a trick?" or classical questions like "But why doesn't I feel God as strong as that person does?".
Let agnostic be agnostic. They will decide latest at their death bed, which is perfectly fine if it makes them happy.
I'm agnostic and people don't understand me, I get accused of being atheist. I'd say that people who would say that I should make up my mind feel that I believe in god but don't have "real" faith, a lot of people believe that religion should be practiced, that you should attend church regularly and may think that an agnostic person wasn't fully committed and therefore should either fully commit to a religion or none at all. That's the impression I get from my boyfriends zealot parents at least.
Agnostics don't know because it can't be known. At least they know that. Faith in an unknowable conjecture is delusion, a comfort to be sure, because uncertainty is annoying and frightening, but a delusion - and all delusion is dangerous. And not a great head start to inject our children with as they go out to try and navigate this world with their only real tools being love and true knowledge.
There seems to be an awful lot of religion floating around in philosophy these days....
However. In the classic meaning of the word, and agnostic would maintain that humans cannot know. That we do not have the mental equipment to make an informed decision.
This is a reasonable position, IMO. There is of course, no evidence of any god. However...If we posit a god with all the usual characteristics....Omnipotence and omniscience... Then this god could certainly conceal itself from us for whatever purposes it wished.
This is the position of most "agnostic atheists".... That we see no evidence whatever of any god, but acknowledge that should compelling evidence come to light, our position might have to be altered. (which is, coincidentally, how science works)
It gives no one credit for the creation of everything. It's a lack of gratitude. Who do you have to thank? One can thank other human beings for small deeds but can't be thankful for the biggest of all deeds. God gave us food, water, gold, air, sunshine, toys, the very computer they type on, the person the love etc...and one is not thankful? How do you feel when others show a lack of appreciation or gratitude. You begin to withhold from them. You withdraw both your love and your gifts.
The "elephant" here is the word "should" and I would thinbk you can create and entire and forceful essay arguing that "should" creates NO obligation and only a suggestion (based, usually, on some unstated or unstatable criteria). Another idea - If one's mind is not "made up" how does that impact everyday life (it doesn't- and, again, "should" seems kind of silly).
