46 years and agnostic since about 15. I think that there must be a higher intelligence (cannot prove it) you could call it instinct if you may (certainly not knowledge) However, no religion or faith makes any sense to me. I do not believe in the concept of revelation either. Does not makes sense to me if existence is only in this physical body and that is all our existence. Do not fear death or any concept of “damnation”. I try to learn as much as I can from informed fine people like most of you but I do not ignore my instincts of the possibility of higher intelligence beyond my comprehension. And there you have it: agnostic but not yet atheist. Certainly that no religion makes sense to me.

With something like 2900 monotheistic religions, each one saying that it is the only true one, what is the probability of any one of them being right?

I have no idea.
I've always been sure that I'm an atheist.

That answer would depend on an individual and his processing of his/her experience and known facts.

Since when did Observation and personal experience get relegated from being a fact btw? Did you want those collaborating and t testing before you’ll consider them valid? Life is an ongoing experiment

For as long as you can keep an open mind and can be comfortable with — or at least tolerate — acknowledging that all your “questions” may not be valid and that you may never find satisfying “answers.” A lot of people find uncertainty disquieting. Oh yeah: And pay your dues to keep your membership current.

Forever.

In this realm, it will always be a matter of opinion. At least until the deity or science, confirms for us all that the answer is BLANK! once and for all. In other words, it's up to you.

As for How long can a person remain Agnostic and not fall off the fence into either belief or non-belief?

As long as they want. Maybe it's a short journey between theism and atheism (as these things tend to be). Or maybe it's the stance of a lifetime of other focuses.

I can only speak for myself, but being undecided (however, you want to phrase it, given the hostility towards associating this stance with agnosticism) may well be where I plant my stake permanently. It's allowed me to close the book on this topic and develop my other interests, while still leaving room for change.
This position isn't the easiest to defend to others in the community, in places like this. But that does not bother me since I don't require other people to GET it for it to be legitimate for me.

I've pondered this topic over many years since my teen years, evolving my position occasionally in the process. Most I encounter embed themselves on a treadmill of cookie-cutter ideology and easy to regurgitate talking points. And this is coming from both ends of the Dawkins scale!

Note: I don't necessarily consider the Dawkins scale to be a correct measure, particularly towards the mid portions of the scale. It's just a handy prop to grab for such writing as this.

To close it off, stay on the fence/in the middle ground/an agnostic for a little or as lengthy a time as you want.

I don't see the whole spectrum of belief and disbelief as static. Individuals change their minds about their beliefs all the time and it is not just agnostics "falling off the fence." Theists become atheist, atheist take on a theistic belief, and agnostics change to atheism or theism.

I identify as an agnostic but I believe it also falls into the realm of atheism since I have no specific belief in diety. But agnosticism isn't just fence sitting. In my case, I don't believe God is a knowable entity by human beings. I don't believe human beings with our sensory perceptions or our cognitive abilities can discern between God and an impostor who has abilities or knowledge superior to our own - the greater the difference, the more difficult to discern. Consider the scenario of the alien astronauts coming to earth and encountering prehistoric man. Their abilities would necessarily be far more advanced than that of ancient humans and our distant ancestors could easily mistaken these beings as supernatural Gods. Such phenomenon has occurred with primitive peoples when they come into contact with more advanced cultures. Even today with our own advanced knowledge of the natural world, we may be better prepared to determine a divine fraud, but this does not mean that some beings couldn't have abilities or knowledge which could fool our own to discern. For me, agnosticism is as much a belief that God is unknowable and not just a question of not knowing whether or not if God exists.

There is no reason for conflict we are all non believers

I think to believe that there is a sentient being out there that not only controls the universe and everything in it is beyond all reason. However, to believe something exists beyond what our human senses can detect is not so unreasonable. I don't know who or what discovered the true nature of water but, I'm pretty sure it was'nt a fish. Will we ever discover the true nature of our being? I doubt it. Does it matter? Only in so far as we can develop enough knowledge to prosper as individuals and as a species. The unexamined life is not worth living. So, examination is beneficial regardless of the result of the inquiry. Therefore to be agnostic is not a gateway to atheism. It's the only worthwhile state of being, Yes I am studying to become a minister but, New Thought is sort of a Spiritual Humanism. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

Try watching some Aron Ra videos on You Tube and see what you get. He seems like a reasonable and intelligent man.

I haven't noticed that at all. Maybe I'm too distracted by external politics.

Everyone is unique, for some that identify as agnostic there is no transition, just that.

Good question, though I doubt a scientific test exists for which to exclude personal conjecture.. With that, I’ve always viewed Agnosticism as that transitional point between make believe & reality. The reasons anyone would follow either are too varied to speculate. It’s not easy sitting on a fence, or watching life pass you by…

[edited,text to test]

I am Atheist entirely, 100%, but as a Freethinker I accept the fact I can be wrong no matter how sure I am. Does that make me Agnostic?

That question is unanswerable, because it assumes that agnostics are just dithering between making the decision to become fully atheist or going back to fully believing, which is not so. You can actually be both atheist and agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive. There has started to be a niggling between those who identify as either one or the other, but in my opinion it’s being driven by a small number of agnostics who seem to think that because they are smaller in numbers here they need to compensate by being overly aggressive. I identify as both, incidentally, although I don’t find labelling ourselves very helpful, as it merely highlights our differences when we should unite around our commonalities.

I am an agnostic atheist. I have no belief in god. I also understand that not everything is knowable. It has nothing to do with fence sitting, but I generally hesitate describing myself as agnostic for the very reason that many people do not understand what it means, and I am not in the mood to educate people.

I'll just keep on being athnostic or agnistic depending on my mood.

As long as you define Agnosticism as "having an open mind": For ever.

Gnosticism (knowledge)and theism (belief) are different things and not mutually exclusive

If you believe a god(s) exists you are a theist
if you don't believe gods exist, you are an atheist.

I am an atheist - so I do not believe the claims of theists that gods exist. I do not know that gods could not exist in some form in some universe so as such I am an agnostic atheist. As soon as someone can define their god and provide sufficient evidence for their claim, I will be a theist.

I'm not agnostic and consider those who are to be mostly people who recognize that life or animation and vegetation are manifested by unknown yet perceivable causes. Function is, unlike deities, something we can observe in living things and intentionality can be reasoned from life processes/manifestations.

Rejection of deities and theologies propagating notions that such entities exist is what I consider atheist to mean; almost equally adjective and noun. Agnostics seem to remain suspicious that functional phenomena occurring around them might not be a very broad, unknowable cosmic Nature at work, but a human-like super personality with tender feelings about rejection.

I think one can accept such things as life, love, thinking and reasoning, and work to be rooted in Nature and Nature's unknowable intentions without envisioning the source as ANYTHING even close to human. There HAS TO BE better than us out there in the cosmos.

Faculties of thought and reason are all that is necessary to see ourselves and our place in Nature if we can do away with the blinders of 'isms', both theological and secular. They all harness and enslave our creature potential as addictive and secondary rooted, contrived pockets, considered by their captives to be "reality".

... just supposing that you get an answer you like, whether it be opinion or observation/ personal experience ... what good is it? What do you gain from that answer?

... curious minds want to know.

Someone can be on the fence forever if it is something they don't think about or analyze. Some people just don't care, and I think that would leave then "on the fence."

Agnostic and always agnostic. I don't take any of the sides. I would take Socrates words, I only know that I nothing know (hopefully I quoted this right).