The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

People use the word "Atheist" to mean a couple of different things, you guys are describing the two meanings correctly. It's just genuinely a muddy term because usage is so split. Richard Dawkins has a handy disambiguation in the God Delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Honestly I think "strong atheists" are mostly just a straw man created so believers can say "look, these atheists are just as unreasonable as us!". But I guess a few real ones exist.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

If I believed in Karma, then I'd say it's for the hundreds of fish this guy has impaled in the mouth with his fishing hook, and then left to suffocate on the boat. Either way, it's so much needless suffering.

Richard Dawkins seems to think that the lower intelligence a creature the more pain it feels (to keep it safe, since it's unable to reason as effectively). There's no real way to tell how much pain a fish feels, but watching it try to escape as it's being pulled by the mouth is a pretty good indicator. For comparison if someone stuck a hook in a dogs mouth, and then pulled the dog along as it squirmed and writhed in pain, people would lose their minds. A fish is doing the same thing, only minus the yelping.

I'm really only regurgetating what people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have said in their books and podcasts. So I'll direct you there, as they articulate it way better than me.
There is also http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/ which the statistics are quite alarming, and the left choose to ignore many of these. They assume that everyone in the world is a good person, and that they would do good if they had the same opportunities. It's simply not the case.
All religions are not equal either (and I'm a staunch atheist), and neither are all cultures.

We might not have a perfect world, but it's dishonest to try to claim that everything and everyone is the same. It's dishonest to ignore that the majority of the world has decided to stop stoning gays, crucifying human rights protesters, and treating women worse than dogs. Just to name a few things.

I'm not voting for Trump newtboy, and I am not necessarily arguing with some of your points about Trump..I am not sure what to believe about who he really is or what he would do if he were elected president. I think even if he were going to be a good president at home, I still wouldn't trust him to handle the fragile situation in the middle east or with russia, etc.

By the way, even Richard Dawkins admits that Jesus is a real person, so you are pretty out there with that belief my friend.

Congratulations! Your comment on Richard Dawkins Angers Stupid Woman, 2 girls 1 cup style has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Richard Dawkins Angers Stupid Woman, 2 girls 1 cup style has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 15 Badge!

Your video, richard dawkins hammers ben carsons belief in creationism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Relevant to this video:

Why so many liberals just can't stand Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Bill Maher: Richard Dawkins – Regressive Leftists has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

It might "feel" like someone who's found god/religion but that comes down to brainwashing & propaganda. Just like the propaganda that is spread about drugs in general that are scheduled (that they are unhealthy and have no health benefits). The atheist trend is just a trend and everyone is going along with it. I'm not saying I believe in god but that things are a lot more complicated than that.

I commented because it's Richard Dawkins, who in my mind - has a position - one that I had for most of my life in fact. That really there is nothing that can't be explained. Sure, DMT affects the serotonin 5-HTA sites, who cares, It's messing with your brain. So, what? What the person experiences is really the only thing I have ever encountered that truly is a mystery. It opens up that dialog that, really, no one knows what the hell is going on in the Universe if such as strange thing is possible. And in my mind, that is incredible.

This parody article that came out about Dawkins I found to be hilarious:

http://wundergroundmusic.com/richard-dawkins-renounces-atheism-after-smoking-dmt/

It could happen on the spice and I mean it's more than likely if he takes the challenge that people have presented to him (people have been urging him to see the "unknown" loud and clear) that it would alter his perception of reality and how he speaks about these topics completely.