While the other thread was to discuss your opinions on people who are agnostic, the thread itself brought up another discuss, whether or not someone can actually be agnostic. This thread is less about the people some see as "fence-sitters" as it is to discuss the idea that one can or cannot be an agnostic. I don't want this thread discuss why people say they are agnostic or your view regarding those people, as to discuss the actual idea of agnostism. As stated in the other thread, some feel that it is not even possible to be an agnostic, but rather, they lack the definition of their beliefs and thus call themselves agnostic. Perhaps its to vague of a title, but I am really curious to see were this goes. Its a close tie in, but different subjects from my view.
I understand and have already changed the description with your textual words so there is no confusion. Now to answer your questions:
Do you think agnostic are really agnostic?
Some truly are and some just want to believe they are...
Is it possible to be a true agnostic?
I believe so based on my personal belief in the scriptures I use, they both acclaim that a person can be a 'true neutral'.
What are some other possibilities outside of agnostism that possibly explain their beliefs?
I would say certain 'characteristics' keeps a person neutral with three of the major ones being that they are either;
1. Stalling, because they do not want to become committed
2. A thorough investigator to the point that they may miss the mark
3. Just have not found what they are looking for as opposed to what something really is...
All this in my opinion.
I have come to believe that people can be truly agnostic now. This is due to the idea that agnostic simply don't believe that there can be knowledge of a god. They aren't really fence sitters, but they may or may not believe in a god or higher power, but still be agnostic, not believing that we CAN have knowledge of gods. This kind of negates the entire purpose of this thread I suppose.