I'm staying out of this one for now but... terms are important and as Russell was used to justify an atheist position:

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.

\ufffd Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91

Natch for me...

and thanks... I put a link in above (post to Pete) to point to Russell's Teapot ([link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot|http://en.wikipedia..../Russell's_teapot]). I do like Dawkin's summary at the bottom as a primer for why so many folks do not want view organized religion as just another shelf in the market of ideas. Given its history, it would be folly not to be extremely skeptical about other's motivations when getting into the "my God's bigger than your God" types of debates. It has been a few generations since the holocaust, however; and to many who casually look at the "be-attitudes" without the historical tyranny of the Crusades and the Dark Ages, find it just another plausible explanation. When I defend "a person's" right to be left alone with their quest for connectedness, I guess that I sort of assume that the person understands the skeletons in their deist's closets. This is probably a naive assumption on my part. In the historical context of Russell's time, he probably still was taking a huge risk by taking a position against societal norms. If I am to believe that 90% of Americans "believe in God" (which I don't - I understand that we could probably shave about 20-30% off that number depending on how the surveys are phrased), then this board and our posts would label us as "traitors" and lost sheep. We can only hope that during the next inquisition that the mob has read the parables...

;-)

Mrs. Animal/Critter (Happy Anniversary!), :-)
At various points in my life I have been labeled a Presbyterian, a Protestant, and a lot of other secular "things". Both of my children were baptized as Roman Catholics (it means much more to my wife than me). I have my own connection with God (yes, I do believe in God as a notion or an ideal. But just like in the quote by Russell, I have always been very guarded in how I respond in a philosophical debate versus to a common interaction. What I mean is that if a stranger asks me, "are you a Christian?" I will answer no, that I am agnostic. Perhaps it is lazy on my part, but I don't wish to explain in painful detail how I believe in a kind and loving god, etc. etc. etc. I basically assume I am speaking to a fundamentalist and do not bother mentioning notions or distinctions about Gehenna, the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark or other nuances that I believe have been misinterpreted/abused for centuries. So, in my own brand of Christianity, there is no literal Hell and room for dinosaurs and billions of years in between.

I am still stuck with the Golden Rule and the Kantian moral imperative to act appropriately, but I do not fear a "beast". And I could go on and on. To wit, I believe that God does "whatever it takes" to reveal himself in a way people can understand and in this narrow rubric, it is possible to me that he inspired most of the major religions - or not. I'm not really sure. And life is too short to debate this stuff over and over as I am fairly confident that there is no truly "enlightened one" but we are all enlightened as God is part of everyone and everything. And those, I come back to notion that "I do not know". This is one iteration.

On another iteration, I might start with the premise that it is impossible for there to be a supreme anything in an infinite universe. It is painfully obvious that Darwin, the Geological record, et al are absolutely correct and that religion/mythology is just a construct of men to rule with the ultimate "eye in the sky" (notice that even Santa sees you when you're sleeping?) to control our primal actions when others aren't present. And I wonder where the kind and loving God was during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc. And I absolutely believe there is no possible way for God to exists - or not. Then I loop back.

And on and on. And I surmise that most people cherry pick aspects of religion they choose to accept and as you say, by an agnostic definition, you may well be agnostic too. In my case, I feel it is intellectual honesty to admit my doubts to those who care to listen. At the same time, I no longer spend much thought on trying to find the "right" answer as I believe there isn't one to be found, not in Aquinos, Locke, Dante, Augustine, Darwin, Marx, Vonnegut - or, maybe there is. Loop. And so on.

As such, I look now for connectedness with my fellow human beings (and animals too) and use my power of language to compare notes, gain insights, etc. We are biologically wired to be social and I try to make connections with people and try to lead a decent life and make others around me happy. In many regards, I lead a Christian life and am proud of it. Jesus was a non-violent revolutionary and a model for all the others that followed. One can do a lot worse than adopt his philosophies - or not.

And, I believe that I share your feelings about feeling connected with "a power in the universe", which I also choose to call God. At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what others label me.

:-)