Thanks for the reply. There's a part of me that wishes I had that much time to waste, but unfortunately not.

You're probably not interested in the details, but for what it's worth I first signed in during a time of heavy crunch at work. After that never really stuck around to become a member of the community, or any community for that matter. Work was taking its toll.

At the moment I'm getting ready to move country, again, so on the odd day I can spare some time. For whatever reason I ended up at an old site I used to visit (bluesnews) which lead me back here.

Now, back into hiding for X amount of years as work continues to beat me into submission

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.

An atheist is someone who actively denies the existence of God whereas someone who claims to be agnostic says that is something that is unknown and/or unknowable.

dictionary dot com/browse/atheist
dictionary dot com/browse/agnostic

edit for urls

Sorry Shiny, I posted directly to you rather than quote.

I'm glad someone else saw it at least. The summary of his entire point can applied to literally any topic, as you've pointed out.

Though not surprising after seeing the focus of the channel. It becomes clear he has a bone to pick with religion showing that the argument is formed emotionally rather than logically. I'd rather have seen an argument which was formulated around the bigger picture and applied to various topics than used as a poker to try and stick religion with.

As for the other persons comment on this being a young account, yes it is. Ok?

I'm glad someone else saw it at least. The summary of his entire point can applied to literally any topic, as you've pointed out.

Though not surprising after seeing the focus of the channel. It becomes clear he has a bone to pick with religion showing that the argument is formed emotionally rather than logically. I'd rather have seen an argument which was formulated around the bigger picture and applied to various topics than used as a poker to try and stick religion with.

As for the other persons comment on this being a young account, yes it is. Ok?

"We fight brown people"

How far back are we taking this? I had no idea Germans were brown in the 40's.

The furthest a true scientist can get away from the belief in God is as an agnostic. All other proud claims of knowledge that He doesn't exist are just as religiously dogmatic as those this video claims to describe.

Which ironically is the only ridiculous claim.