So I boiled down my agnosticism to this: I can make the leap of faith to accept that a higher power exists. If it ended there, that's fine. But I'm an agnostic simply because I believe there's no way to know more than that, to decide which religion is right, or if you believe they're all paths leading to the same place, which one of them makes for the more pleasant stroll or goes closer to the point. If you're an exlusivist monotheist, then you must believe either that the truth of your way is somehow self-evident and that people who reject it are knowingly brushing aside the One True God, or just be callous enough to not care whether other people make it to the good afterlife or not. If you're on the more open side, that all faiths are the yellow brick road, then you accept not being able to know for certain which one will be the most spiritually satisfying.
That's not to say that none of them are worth beleiving in just because we can't know for sure. For myself, I see them the same way I do sociological models: some work well in some places and fail in others, others work the other way around. So I can't get why sociologists stick to just one school of thought and acclaim it as the best, knowing full well it can't answer everything, instead of seeing all the models as part of a whole acting together.
Then again, people of the same sociological belief system don't schedule potlucks with each other, which I think is really too bad.
Thinking a lot in rhetorical argument lately. Maybe it's just that I've been sitting here writing law arguments all day. On the plus side, it's my birthday tomorrow, or as I'm fond of calling it, "Martini Time."