The first article is a longer version of what I call the tilde fallacy. if you can’t see the force of my arguments against that fallacy, there’s probably not much more I can say.

The second article is charming and thoughtful, but it reminds me of those Christians who say that all good Buddhist, Muslims etc. are “really Christian at heart”. This definition of “atheist” does not accurately describe atheists like Dawkins and Harris, who are the primary public spokesman for Atheism today.

here’s a description of my own position, taken from an article of mine:

If theism and atheism have essentially equal nonsupport from science, this seems to imply that anyone who takes science as the gold standard for knowledge will have to accept some kind of agnosticism. I will be arguing for a subspecies I will call Meta-agnosticism. This is distinct from the species of agnosticism which insists that our level of ignorance on the topic is so high that it would be best to behave as if the atheists were right. For all practical purposes, this kind of agnosticism is behaviorally identical to nondogmatic atheism. Meta-agnosticism, in contrast, acknowledges that nondogmatic atheism does imply certain behavioral commitments, and refuses to make those commitments. Instead, it acknowledges that there are forms of atheism, theism, and agnosticism which are intellectually honest, because there are good but not decisive arguments for each of them.

I agree with William James that when evidence and arguments leave us adrift in this manner we have some legitimate freedom in what we choose to believe. This freedom does have limits. We cannot. believe that global warming is imaginary simply because that belief makes us feel better. We cannot legitimately believe that the earth is only six thousand years old just because the Bible could be interpreted as implying this. However, when our most careful intellectual effort narrows the best possible answers to a figure that is greater than one, we have an epistemic right to choose between these (and only these) possibilities. This kind of narrowing is the best that we can do with theological questions, which is why there are intellectually honest versions of theism, atheism, and agnosticism, even if there are no decisive proofs for or against the existence of God. Meta-agnosticism honors all three of these as legitimate and honest choices.