Agnosticism: A basis for rationalist morals

(originally published Oct. 22, 2011)
I'm currently researching for an essay and as you can tell, I'm doing a bad job.
In this short essay I intend to rehabilitate the perception of Agnostics, the only "denomination" of which I'd claim to be a member.  (A hefty task to say the least)

What is agnosticism?
Well, Wikipedia currently thinks Agnosticism "is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."
In other words, they're not sure God(s) exist(s).
Thus, if I had to pinpoint the key defining factor that causes someone to be an agnostic, it would be their perspective of the "leap of faith," because, in general, a leap faith is the main requirement for someone to be sure about the existence or non-existence of (a) God(s).

What is a leap of faith?
Well, Wikipedia currently thinks a leap of faith "is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence."
In other words, knowing something beyond experience.

As stated, a person's perspective of the "leap of faith" is the key defining factor that causes someone to be an agnostic because a leap of faith is required for someone to be (a)theist.  A leap of faith is required to "know" that God exists," but, importantly, a leap of faith is also required to "know" that God does not exist.
What's often misunderstood or taken for granted, is that atheism can be just as irrational as theism, because atheism bears the same burden of evidence as theism.

As you can probably tell, I think that Agnosticism is "rational."  I stress the rationality of Agnosticism because of the irrationality of the leap of faith: of knowing something without empirical evidence.

And here's the meat of my argument:
In discussions with some of my faithful companions, both theist and atheist, (but especially with the theist ones), I often get accused of having "weaker" morals.  That since I have no faith, I am essentially a moral nihilist by default.
I assure you, the reality is quite the opposite.
As a "belief" based entirely on rationality, I'd argue that Agnostics have the potential to have the strongest and purest morals.  To a degree, Agnostic morals are scientific, as they are based entirely on evidence.  They're "objective" in the methodological interpretation of the word: subject to change based on experience.  More importantly, they're almost completely transferable between people(s), because in general we share the same experiences in the same ways.
As I tend to cite Socrates at least once in every Facebook note, I'm clearly not breaking the tradition now.  Socrates, if he lived today, would undoubtedly have been an (if not "the") uber-agnostic.  As cited in my last note, he was most famous for claiming that he "knew nothing."  In sum, Socrates, and Agnosticism for that matter, are testaments to the reality that often the wisest, most intelligent and rational thing a person can say is "I don't know."

I must stress, I respect theists and atheists.  Who knows - maybe they're right.  My problem with their belief(s) is methodological, not substantial.  I happen to harbour many monotheistic values myself, but for very different reasons.  (Which I'll discuss later in another note)
However, one must remember, irrationality is irrational.  It doesn't matter if entire belief system is rational AFTER the irrational leap of faith;  it still rests on an irrational premise.  Theism and atheism are practically identical to knowing that this is all just a dream. Wake up.

P.S.
(I won't lie, atheists tend to have rationalist morals, they just tend to neglect the fact that they're also making an irrational leap of faith.)
(Also, arguably, Agnosticism still requires a leap of faith: a leap of faith that your sensations are real.  But that's a philosophical/metaphysical flying spaghetti monster that I wouldn't touch with a 30 foot pole.)