(Only of course, we’re not.)
I’m comfortable with the role of atheism on this blog (and on my own personal blog). It’s not the main topic of discussion, and I’m not even sure what all the participant’s beliefs are. Maia? Rachel S.? Myca? Still, I can talk about my own atheism if I want to. Apart from occasionally being sent stinkeye from commenters for being a materialist (and not necessarily the same set of commenters who want me barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen already, damn it — religious bigotry ain’t just for conservatives anymore!), this is a relatively safe space for me as an atheist.
There aren’t many spaces where that’s true, relative to the number of spaces out there. For atheists used to being isolated, this kind of graphic is a bit like finding that there are hands being extended toward you. Do I agree with them any more than I agree with all progressives? Heck no. Nor do I read most of them (though, hello Elaine Vigneault). But I’m glad they’re out there, talking.
Well, hello. Proud atheist here :)
here too :)
And here :)
Likewise, I’m sure.
I’m a religious person, and I’m glad there are so many atheist discussion groups and communities available. I don’t want people to feel isolated, even when I don’t share their religious sentiments.
Speaking of isolation, sometimes it feels like a particular type of crusading Christianity is completely taking over the public discourse. It can seem like anything else has to be co-opted, isolated and ignored, or oppressed. Resisting that takeover of the public discourse is a worthy cause, and organized groups for atheists are valuable allies in the resistance (as individual atheists are hurt by the takeover.)
I am an atheist, but acknowledge that ultimately my belief system is also based on an assumption or faith. Specifically faith that the evidence of my senses (plus instruments that extend them) is accurate and reflective of reality. If all that we preceive is really an artificial world created by an evil demon (or mad scientist, etc) then all bets are off and we know nothing whatsoever about the existence or nonexistence of god(s), soul, afterlife, etc. Which I add simply because I’m contrary.
Oh, Dianne, we all know you’re a butterfly dreaming of a better life as a red panda bowling with baloons on Mars.
We do? Glad that’s straightened out now;)
I like to claim to be the same sort of atheist as Yossarian from Catch-22 who goes around through most of the book saying, “There is no God” but when someone else says the same thing says, “What makes you so sure?” But, of course, non-contrarians probably don’t even bother with blogs.
That’s some nice music in that video.
(I’m also an atheist, too. The universe could have a Creator, but I’m pretty sure that any Creator that does actually exist hasn’t written any of the books commonly attributed to him/her/it.)
I am an agnostic of the Carl Sagan variety, which means it is hard to fit a piece of paper between my beliefs and those of an actual atheist. I just feel there is positive value in clearly stating that I know there are important things I do not know.
Dyslexic agnostic with ADD–I don’t know if there’s a dog in heaven, now what were we talking about? Seriously, as an agnostic I sometimes feel like I get it from both sides, and as a follower of the Left Hand Path I feel like I am getting it from all sides. A co-worker was injured and we were handed 2 get-well cards to sign, and both were full of religious sentiment, but I signed ’em anyway because I felt that that guy feeling better was more important than my distaste. Still, I get so sick of the monotheism-centric way this country has gone, the frequent assumption that we all bow down to the same male humanoid god.
Left Hand Path is a sort of blanket term for people who feel that there might be all manner of mysterious forces or presences out there, but approach these as potential equals [or as a fun/useful metaphor] rather than as dependents or slaves.
My connection is too slow to run that video, but I hope it mentioned butterfliesandwheels.com, y’all should check that one out.
Atheism generally includes a rhetorical possibility of god being proved. If god taps me on the shoulder, I’ll go “eh, hello.”
I don’t really remember the logical terms, but it’s something like strong atheism v. weak atheism, and most people mean weak atheism when they say they’re atheists. This means that I don’t believe in God, I live my life as if there is no God, however I retain an agnosticism relative to incoming proof.
How?
I mean, if something taps you on the shoulder, how do you know it’s God and not a mischevious wizard playing a trick on you?
And what’s the difference, anyways? People talk about not believing in God, but I usually have a fairly poor grasp of what it is that they claim to not believe in.
If god taps me on the shoulder, I’ll go “eh, hello.”
Hmmm, I’d be inclined to believe that that entity has delusions of grandeur.
People talk about not believing in God, but I usually have a fairly poor grasp of what it is that they claim to not believe in.
Usually I claim not to believe in an omnipotent (or not), omnipresent (or not) creator of everything, the life & universe. But I’m also happy to not believe in anything that falls under the classification of “supernatural.”
Oh, I of little faith.
Yup. I = materialist.
Question since this thread is getting ambly anyway: Suppose you found out* that you were wrong and there is a god. In fact, it is the true, real god or pantheon is essentially the same as one you have heard of (it can be as obscure as you want as long as you have heard of it.) Which one is it? I decided that I was a true atheist when I realized that my answer to this question was not “Jaweh” (the god I’d been brought up to think of as the default one to believe in or not), but “I have no idea whatsoever.”
*Yeah, like there would be any way to get a reasonable level of proof. Just take it as a given for the thought experiment, ok?
I’m going for the blind idiot god, Dianne. Not Lovecraft’s blind idiot god, rather what the modern understanding of the descriptors are.
OT
Anyone watching Nova right now? It’s looking at the Dover DE teaching evolution in school decision
/OT
Jake:
“Usually I claim not to believe in a […] creator of everything, the life & universe.”
I’m not really sure what “creator” means, when we’re talking about the beginning of the universe. Since the universe is everything, then having something that came before everything seems kinda paradoxical. I’m not saying that there’s no creator, I’m saying that the concept of creation (as I understand it) seems undefined at this point, sort of like a divide-by-zero error.
“But I’m also happy to not believe in anything that falls under the classification of “supernatural.””
Well, that’s kinda passing the buck, isn’t it?
Dianne: “Which one is it?”
Well, that’s an easy one. The FSM, of course! When I die, I want my beer volcano!
Since the universe is everything, then having something that came before everything seems kinda paradoxical. I’m not saying that there’s no creator, I’m saying that the concept of creation (as I understand it) seems undefined at this point, sort of like a divide-by-zero error.
One of many reasons that I believe in no such thing.
I do believe that I answered your original question, though. I don’t believe in anything that I’ve ever heard of described as a god or a devil or an angel, etc. I don’t think it’s really up to me to name everything that I don’t believe in. That’s up to those with faith – they name their supernatural it & I can guarantee you that I don’t believe it exists. So, yeah, it’s passing the buck, in a way. But I really can’t be expected to enumerate everything in which I don’t believe. That would take more than my lifetime to do.
“Well, I always say there’s nothing an agnostic cannot do if he really doesn’t know if he believes in anything or not.”
“But the God I don’t believe in is a kind and gentle God, not like the cruel, heartless God that you don’t believe in!”
“My agnosticism is bigger than your agnosticism!” [As General Boylan should have said.]
O ye atheists, down on your knees before mine divine unbelief!
Mandolin, I’m delighted that you’ve found a supportive community of fellow atheist bloggers. It’s a great shame that you don’t feel safe and welcome as an atheist in all the circles you move in, particularly the progressive-feminist world which is so important to you.
I have to say though, we really are in the 21st century when people make YouTube videos of blogrolls!
Quoting Bjartmarr :
I suspect you’ll find that creation-as-you-understand-it isn’t actually creation as understood by mainstream Western theology. If I understood you right, you’re suggesting that there’s something paradoxical about saying that God existed before creation (and time).
There turn out to be fairly satisfying resolutions to that paradox. It’s a problem that’s been understood for a very long time. As a result, mainstream Western monotheists have a pretty good answer, on which they all agree, and on which they’ve agreed for over a millenium. The standard answer — which is universal in mainstream Judaism and Christianity, and I believe also in Islam — is that God doesn’t actually experience time, or even exist inside time. What “oneness” means is that God has no moving parts, as it were — He cannot ‘change’, only our perceptions of Him can. The religious view is that God was prior to creation, not temporally, but ontologically.
This answer goes back [at least] to Augustine — see Confessions, book XI chapter 12 for a more complete account.
That might not completely resolve the problem, but to the extent that creation is still problematic, I think it’s equally problematic from an atheist perspective.
I’m pretty sure that any Creator that does actually exist hasn’t written any of the books commonly attributed to him/her/it.
Holy Ghost-writer, Batman!
Notacookie,
I’m not really up for a theological discussion here, at least not with y’all Augustinians. Atheists and agnostics back-and-forthing? Eh, okay, although I have no idea why “yay there are atheists” turns up an argument on that subject. But there are so many internetly locations in which your theology can be propounded; I’d really sort of rather that this not be that conversation.
OK, serious question: do you think there’s anything that theists and religious people can do to make atheists feel more comfortable around us? Most of the time when I’m reading political discussions, I have no idea of the beliefs or unbeliefs of any of the people I’m talking to. But I would be very upset to find out that any atheist felt attacked if I happened to mention something connected to religion.
I think it’s pretty situation-dependent, Individ, and also dependent on the attitude and assumptions you bring to the table. If you don’t think of us as inferior or misguided, that will generally come across. If you do, that’ll generally come across, too. Trying to convert someone is basically never appreciated. That’s all pretty basic, but I think it’s sort of ground level.
Also, if possible, try to be sensitive to wounds people have from religion. I’m relatively untouched personally, but I’ve had friends who were raised in situations where abuse was facillitated by Christianity — and of course, they’re angry (I’m angry on their behalf). It’s hard to see them be berated for their justifiable anger. Likewise, it can be hard for me to hear people berate gay people for saying most churches are homophobic or how homophobia in the church drove them out. They have direct wounds, and while I understand there are many gay-positive Christians (and people of other faiths), it’s not reasonable in my opinion to expect people who’ve been wounded by the actions of religious people acting on behalf of their religion not to lay the pain at the feet of that religion.
Pingback: Looking For Something To Read? : Elaine Vigneault
Jake,
No, you haven’t really answered my question — merely negating an undefined does not define it. But that’s okay, I didn’t really expect you to. I suspect that you understand the phrase “created the universe” about as well as I do.
Individ,
The short answer is to be tolerant and treat others’ beliefs (or lack thereof) with respect — or, at least, without disdain. But you knew that part already. There are several acts that I can think of which are particularly obnoxious.
If you choose to pray that I come to believe in your God or quit my wickedness, please do so outside of my presence. And, when you’re finished, don’t announce that you’ve done it. Such prayers imply that I am somehow lacking in my non-belief, and while I am confident enough that such rudeness does not spoil my day, it is annoying. Overt prayer for goals that we share will be accepted in the spirit that it is offered — though, honestly, “I hope you feel better” goes a lot farther than “I prayed for you to get better”.
Don’t assume that you are better than me because you gots religion. Don’t assume that I am without a moral code — I have one, it just doesn’t come from your God. Don’t ask me, “But how do you know the right thing to do?”. If you are surprised when you see someone without religion do a good work, please keep your fascination to yourself. Don’t talk about famous evil atheists as if they somehow define the class — Stalin was evil, and Stalin was an atheist, but there was no causality involved there.
And, obviously, don’t try to convert me — at least, not until you know me very well. (Doing so is more likely to result in your getting mocked than in me being uncomfortable, but it’s best to avoid it all the same.) Mentioning your religion is fine; bringing it up every five minutes is tiresome. If you invite me to participate in your rituals, make sure that I have the option of refusing — don’t ambush me with it. (Short prayers before meals and the like will be tolerated.) Take no for an answer. Realize that spiritual paths are like shoes — yours fits well on you, and mine fits well on me, and attempts to get me to wear your shoes will result in aught but sore feet.
Okay, so not all of the above applies to online discussions. But all of it has happened to me at one time or another, so I wandered a bit.
Pingback: bastard.logic
Heh. As a militantly agnostic (I don’t know, and you don’t either!), theistically leaning person, who practices mild Christianity in daily life, I have yet to find anywhere that hits anything even close to the beliefs I actually hold.
Somehow I find myself arguing theistically on atheistic blogs and atheistically on theistic ones with great regularity, though I try to keep it polite. Mostly I think people need to be a lot less certain about the nature of the universe – I guess. Probably. I could always be wrong.
Here is a very good site that labels and categorizes belief and non Belief.
It is relativly non offensive to all. It is fun but has some serious thought going on in the underlying mechanics of the quiz.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html
Steve
Bjartmarr,
Remember, the obnoxiousness can also go both ways. Atheists (and agnostics) may be outnumbered nationally, but they are not outnumbered in certain circles. If the religious need to avoid making people uncomfortable because of their religion, atheists need to be careful as well.
A few months back I was at a pleasant dinner gathering of a friend on the Upper West Side. At one point a recent acquaintance to the group said something along the lines of: well, we’re all intelligent enough here to realize there is no God. Or something similar. Now, he was in a room with mostly ivy league educated people, half of whom were gay and a quarter of whom were scientists. He was new and thought he was in like-minded company but was not. It made for an awkward evening.
As a side note, because [Wow, is this not the place to tell us that our morals come from your God, especially after the beginning of your comment in which you want us to be sure to know that we should respect you. –Mandolin]
I would like to call everyone’s attention to the dynamic here.
Me:
Yay, there are atheists. I like safe spaces for atheists.
People:
We’re atheists!
New people:
Oh, wow, a bunch of atheists congregating — I’d better tell them why I don’t identify as an atheist. (This bugs me slightly, because I don’t really understand why my identifying as an atheist means inviting an argument between agnostics and atheists about the superiority of either. But I know that this kind of argument is almost … traditional? … as part of atheist/agnostic identification in any space marked out for them, so I don’t object to it happening. It just puzzles me.)
New, new people:
Oh, wow, a bunch of atheists congregating — I”d better tell them about reverse racism — oops, I mean how minorities with no power can be just as bigoted as the people who are in the majority and hold nearly all political offices. Also, I’d better inform them of all the many reasons, theological and “secular,” that they’re wrong and immoral.
The reasons why this is ironic, inappropriate, and emblematic of everything I’ve been saying for weeks about how atheists are really, really far from “dominating” the discourse should be obvious. Et maintenant, I will make my desire for the thread explicit again — if you wish merely to smack atheists on the nose for not believing in your faith, please go to one of the many lovely sites where this is welcome that have spread their rays of sunshine across the internet, and leave us our dark corner.
People of faith are welcome; people who are Christians are welcome; people who are religious and don’t have faith are welcome; people who enjoy standing on their heads are welcome; people who are a-standing-on-headist are also welcome. People who want to have a fight about genesis or why meanie atheists are hypocritical should go gnash their teeth at PZ and see if he’ll bite back.
One thing that I find really interesting about religinuts is that they frequently think the “opposite” of them (e.g. the type of hypothetical person who they should be ‘aware’ of) is a person who is nonreligious. Or who is quietly tolerant.
In reality, the opposite of religion is the position that religion is freakin’ nuts. (Yes, Michael, many of us ARE quietly downgrading the intelligence estimate of someone suggesting that God had something to do with great aunt maude’s cancer remission. We just don’t usually speak about it because, you know, we’re outnumbered and all. And it’s impolite to call people out on being stupid.)
But back to that opposite thing for a moment.
The opposite of praying at a meal isn’t “not praying at a meal.” No, the opposite is making a statement about the nonexistence of God at a meal. The religious majority is so powerful that they have coopted the discussion, and claimed that absence of religion is the opposite of religion.
That’s not true, and you can see it easily if you add /em up. Pray at one meal (or football game, or Senate hearing), and say nothing at another. Add ’em up and divide by two, and what do you get? A half baked plea to God, sure, but a plea to God nonetheless. If you want to balance out that prayer, you need a disavowal of God, which is a whole sight different than mute neutrality.
Think about that for a moment. Do you have an atheist friend? Do you sometimes “include” his views by refraining from prayer? You’re tossing him only half a bone, though in this society he’ll never say so.
Spoof works, too. My extended, atheistic family used to sit down to Thanksgiving dinner with cries of “Grace” and answers of “Kelly.”
I sit through prayers. Shall my opponents never have to sit through spoof?
Ah, right. Faith must never be questioned — but it’s perfectly acceptable to come into a thread about atheists and tell us why our morality is Christian. It would, I suppose, be inappropriate for me to accuse Michael of coopting Zoastrianism with his good/evil light/dark symbollism.
I get it that it’s your space, and I don’t intend to deprive you of it — but I do want to explain why I jumped in, since I believeI wasn’t adequately clear about it. The dynamic that I was responding to, when I posted, was “yay, we’re atheists in a safe space, and we feel good being atheists because religion is X.” Only, as a number of people pointed out, religion isn’t X. It’s as though you had said “we need a safe space for women”, and someone said “yes, I’m proud to be a woman because men have three heads, and cooties”. I figured it was appropriate to point out that that individual was wrong on a point of fact, and buying into a very distorted image of the thing they’re not.
I have no problem with people feeling good about their atheism; it bugs me when they base that sentiment on a highly mistaken understanding of religion. I don’t identify as Christian and wasn’t intending to make anyone unhappy with their beliefs. I cited Augustine above bcause I took a course on him with a delightful( and atheist professor) who convinced me that Augustine was a smart guy who had interesting things to say.
But I have no intention of infringing further on anyone’s safe space.
“I cited Augustine above bcause I took a course on him with a delightful( and atheist professor) who convinced me that Augustine was a smart guy who had interesting things to say. ”
Hi,
Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate that your intent was not malevolent, which is why I let the comment stand. (I don’t think Michael is malevolent either, but I think his argument crosses an important line — even if we accept this argument at face value, it’s deeply problematic. Christianity itself incorporates elements of earlier religions — not just the obvious Judaism, but also myths that are Babylonian, and symbollism that’s Zoroastrian, blah blah blah. So why is it a common and “acceptable” argument to say that atheists can have no morals of their own development, but not to assume the same about Christianity? The difference is not just time — atheists have existed in one form or another for a long time, many of us silent — it’s also a personal willingness to succumb to traditional narratives [which happen to be bigoted against atheists] about what “Christianity” and “atheism” are without questioning whether or not they have foundation.)
I didn’t object to your content so much as some of your phrasing. I’d ask you to consider why it might be problematic to assume that atheists are not familiar with Augustine, and that we haven’t thought out our perspective on the apparent contradiction you found. Your tone seemed to suggest that Bjartmarr could only have said what sie said out of ignorance, which plays into other narratives about atheists and religion, though I’m sure that wasn’t your intention. I’d submit that the existence of Augustine’s work doesn’t mean that there aren’t common refutations, or reasonable and well-considered perspectives that reject him.
Christianity itself incorporates elements of earlier religions — not just the obvious Judaism, but also myths that are Babylonian, and symbollism that’s Zoroastrian, blah blah blah. So why is it a common and “acceptable” argument to say that atheists can have no morals of their own development, but not to assume the same about Christianity?
Hah! I’d started to comment along these lines in response to your prior comment & Sailorman’s comment. But then I decided not to (both because I didn’t think I was writing clearly & because I wasn’t sure it was relevant).
Anyway, the reason it is acceptable to say that the morality of atheists comes from Christianity while not acknowledging the unoriginality of Christian morals is, as I have been led to understand by religionists, because Christian morals derive from pre-Christian faiths. That is to say that morals can only come from god or gods & earlier understandings of gods are valid and more or less equal to Christianity in being divinely inspired. Atheists on the other hand, being human, cannot possibly have created any sort of moral code. This can’t be offensive because it is undeniably true. So say the religionists.
New people:
Oh, wow, a bunch of atheists congregating — I’d better tell them why I don’t identify as an atheist. (This bugs me slightly, because I don’t really understand why my identifying as an atheist means inviting an argument between agnostics and atheists about the superiority of either. But I know that this kind of argument is almost … traditional? … as part of atheist/agnostic identification in any space marked out for them, so I don’t object to it happening. It just puzzles me.)
OK, as the first person to state their agnosticsm and why, I probably started this, but that was actually the opposite of my intention. I saw a bunch of people proudly stating their non-theism, and I wanted to join in. But I could not say “I’m an atheist too!” because really, I am not. That was why I cited Sagan. He and Richard Dawkins may have different styles and different estimations as to the probabilities of certain untestable hypotheses, but I think it is pretty clear that Sagan and Dawkins are on the same “side” when it comes to the whole “religion” thing. I was trying to show solidarity, not start a fight. I apolgize for not doing a better job of it.
I didn’t really feel like you were starting a fight. There are one or two people who I felt sort of were, but I probably just phrased my summary of theconversation badly because I was being flippant. I apologize.
I like I-statements, and I relaize that your I-statement andmine won’t be the same. I just also… I don’t know, wonder about how the framing often ends up.
(Yes, Michael, many of us ARE quietly downgrading the intelligence estimate of someone suggesting that God had something to do with great aunt maude’s cancer remission. We just don’t usually speak about it because, you know, we’re outnumbered and all. And it’s impolite to call people out on being stupid.)
Sailorman,
You presume too much. I harbor no illusions that God cares if I win the lottery. Or if he helped my Aunt Maude out with her cancer. I have Ph.D. in biophysics; I’m too intelligent for crap like that. I’m also to theologically versed to believe in such drivel. But that was my point. In a room full of highly intelligent, highly educated people, the default position was “there is no God”. The opposite of “there is no God”, to this group of people I mentioned, was your “religinuts” example, stupid people who believe in mockable superstitions.
Mandolin,
I apologize if you misconstrued my statement (which I didn’t save so I can’t say for sure what it was in detail) which was not that secular morality comes from God, per se, but that one cannot have a serious discussion about Western moral code without addressing the pervasiveness of Christian thought in that area. We did not grow up in a vacuum. And your follow-up comment seems to have missed what maybe I glossed over, which was the heavy influence of Greek philosophical thought in Christianity. Again, I’m not stupid enough to be a biblical literalist, nor ignorant enough to know the origins of my own religion (contrary to popular belief, probably because this is a heavily protestant country, 12 years of Catholic school gives one an amazing historical perspective on Christianity).
Clearly, however, this is not the place and I should have left my comment to my dinner party observation. I do commiserate, however, with the atheists who feel isolated; because as a gay Catholic scientist, finding likeminded people for discussion is a difficult thing. Being caught between the seething atheism of the likes of PZ Myers and the anti-science vitriol of the “religinuts” is troubling. And it’s ashame that atheists aren’t treated more respectfully by the religious. But then, civil discourse is very difficult.
I had just wanted to point out that the experience of having your discourse dominated depends on the milieu and that some of us reasonable minded people who believe in God often find ourselves out-discoursed by our peers.
People who don’t understand that agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive shouldn’t be starting arguments about either.
“One thing that I find really interesting about religinuts is that they frequently think the “opposite” of them (e.g. the type of hypothetical person who they should be ‘aware’ of) is a person who is nonreligious. Or who is quietly tolerant.
In reality, the opposite of religion is the position that religion is freakin’ nuts.”
These would be the same people who, when asked for proof of God, would counter with a demand for proof that God does not exist. Positive vs. negative propositions: there’s a difference, people.
NotACookie, the problem with the most sophisticated of Christian apologetics is that they always only are able to justify a minimal belief in some impersonal, Deistic sort of deity rather than the all-encompassing personal God of tradition that real life Christians believe in. You’d have to ignore basically the entirety of the Bible to conclude that God can’t make mistakes, including the fairly central and important notion that at some specific point in history God replaced his initial covenant with Israel with one that included all Gentiles as well.
sylphhead noted:
Oh, sure. I take for granted that there’s a lot of powerful objections to Christian doctrine. It happens that the particular objection that my initial comment was referring to wasn’t a very good one. (Parenthetically, I suspect theology isn’t a good arena to challenge religion, since it’s their turf. The religious world has spent a long time thinking through its doctrines and often has pretty good answers there. There are other avenues of attack that are more effective, such as the lack of evidence for most beliefs.)
If you want to attack Christian doctrine for being self-contradictory, or just plain silly, go right ahead — but make sure you understand the doctrine before you do so. It’s very easy to refute imprecise or misleading popularization of Christian doctrine, but that’s a bad intellectual habit to get into.
sylphead, I can’t figure out if you are agreeing with me or suggesting I don’t know the difference between a positive and negative proposition…?
I identify as both an atheist and an agnostic depending on the context. A quote from Russel I like:
“As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”
Either way, I’m happy that there are blogs (and numerous other resources) so that I don’t feel quite so alone on cyberspace. Later. :-)
“sylphead, I can’t figure out if you are agreeing with me or suggesting I don’t know the difference between a positive and negative proposition…?”
Ah, my bad. I was agreeing, and then providing another example where religious apologists can’t separate positive from negative. The opposite of prayer isn’t not praying, and the inverse of proving there is a god is not proving that there isn’t one.
SteveTwo, I disagree with Russell’s first statement, only because it isn’t *agnostics* who are saying it’s impossible to prove there isn’t a god, it’s elementary logic; you can’t prove a negative. (The exception would be if the negative were logically self-contradictory. There are arguments to the effect that omnipotence is self-contradictory and therefore an omnipotent being cannot possible exist.) But I suppose the second statement sort of played off the first.
Agnostics profess lack of knowledge of any gods. Atheists profess lack of belief in any gods. The two don’t necessarily have to be related. You can believe in a god while maintaining that you don’t know anything about that god (agnostic theist; a rather weird position, but one I’ve found is increasingly common), and you can disbelieve in any gods while maintaining that you affirmatively know your position is correct (gnostic atheists, commonly called strong atheists). Any book on atheism will define the terms as such.
The problem is that the literal and popular/traditional meanings of words don’t always line up. For instance, it’ll probably only cause confusion to cast ‘gnosticism’ as the contrary to ‘agnosticism’, because Gnosticism is a specific strain of apocryphal Christianity in the mystery tradition, that has a specific history and context. And using the literal definition of ‘agnostic’, the majority of Americans would fall under that category. However, ‘agnostic’ has become a synonym for ‘weak atheist’, and since by far most atheists are weak atheists, most self-professed agnostics are technically atheists. The word ‘agnostic’ was popularized by the likes of Russell and Darrow in the present meaning simply because the more accurate ‘atheist’ carried too much of a stigma.
Another of Russell’s comments on the agnosticism vs. atheism distinction is that while he could not prove there is no God, he also could not prove there is not a tea kettle in space orbiting the sun, but he thought there was the same evidence for both. I believe he said this in the 1930s. I consider this to be the best yardstick a methodological naturalist can use to determine if they are an atheist or agnostic. Do you believe that God or some other divine force or being is more plausible than an orbital tea kettle in the 1930s? (I have added “in the 1930s”, since space travel has made orbital tea kettles, while still highly implausible, significantly more plausible than they were when Russell made the analogy.) If you say yes, you are a connotative agnostic, if you say no, you are a connotative atheist. I think both are reasonable for a methodological naturalist, as well as deciding that God or some other divinity is more plausible than not, which would make that person a deist or something similar. But I think that any methodological naturalist would have to conclude that any of the specific supernatural claims of any religion is no more plausible than a 1930s orbital tea kettle, which is what puts us all on the same side.