Without exception, you should fall in one of the three categories: theists, atheists or agnostics.
If you are a theist, then you believe in a supreme being called God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. In this case, you are a creationist and believe strongly that God created the universe and everything in it, including you and me. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of divine.
If you are an atheist, then you believe in evolution that is a process of natural selection and survival the fittest. Thus, you are an evolutionist and believe that the universe and everything in it came about by coincidence. In other words, everything in the universe is due to the act of the blind watchmaker.
And finally, if you are an agnostic, then you don’t know what the hell is going on in this universe. In other words, you are a fence sitter who doesn’t want to bother in thinking about the ancient dilemma of our origins.
The fundamental tool for evolutionists in assessing our origins is science, where for creationists it is religion and faith, a blind act (it’s still an act). Agnostics do not need any tool, as they are mental couch potatoes who do not want to be burden with the responsibility of proof. Both science and religion, as two tools, seek ultimate truth about the origin of the universe. However, agnostics, by not having any tool, do not seek anything. Evolutionists rely on what they deem as scientific proof or evidence. Creationists rely on what they deem as divine revelations and intuitive discoveries. But agnostics don’t have to rely on anything, because they prove nothing. That is why it is easiest to be an agnostic.
Here is one of the most ancient questions: Is there a God? The true answer to the question could be either “yes” or “no”. There is not a third answer, like “I don’t know,” as agnostics tend to reply. This is because “I don’t know” is not a true answer to our question.
The best analogy in this case is that of tossing a coin. If you are asked whether it is going to be “head” or “tails,” then your answer should be “heads” or “tails,” not “I don’t know”. This latter phrase can be a conveniently neutral and meaningless answer to virtually any question.
When you reply “yes, there is a God.” Or “no, there isn’t.” your answer could be either right or wrong, which is how an answer is supposed to be. The phrase “I don’t know” is neither right nor wrong, and that’s why it cannot be considered as an answer to the question of whether or not God exists.
In fact, “I don’t know” is the best excuse for the lazy brains of the agnostics to avoid any thinking and spending any energy regarding the issues of their origins, much less God’s existence.
The agnostics’ argument is based on the assumption that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, so why even bother with the problem at all? In response, one could ask the agnostics why no one can prove or disprove God’s existence.
This is where the problem now arises with agnostics. The answers “yes, God exists” and “no God doesn’t exists” are two hypotheses which need either religious or scientific proof and thus easy thinking (as in theism) or hard thinking (as in atheism) to be proven undeniably sometime in the future. But the answer “I don’t know” is not considered a hypothesis by the agnostics, so consequently requires no effort at all to be proven or disproven.
That is how agnostics escape the whole argument lazily, without any real trouble. And that’s why being an agnostic simply means not wanting at all to think. As agnostics avoid any thinking on this topic, I am just wondering if any agnostic will bother to think and develop a counter argument for what I have accused them of, being mental couch potatoes.