Russell made an interesting distinction between agnostic and atheist:
""""An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists."""""
An important clarification. When He manifests Himself via some righteous Wagnerian trumpet section, maybe some will change their mind. More seriously, the intelligent agnostic refrains from the table-pounding characteristic of some
A rational Deity would seemingly want His creatures to be rational, would be not?? A rational approach to the God debate requires examining the evidence (instead of blindly following dogma, whether religious, or anti-religious). Alas, little evidence exists which would confirm the presence of a Deity (is the black plague, not to say 20th century history---part of Providence?): the agnostic, even the strong agnostic, however, grants that a Deity (or deities) cannot be conclusively disproven to exist (very difficult to prove a negative assertion as Russell, that glib wizard, also noted).