I apologize. It was late and I found the video.
Two points: (1) we aren't going to prove a point by pulling up a video; Dawkins is an idiot and won't convince me of anything. Let's stick to discussing and supporting with data of why we believe what we do, rather than just pointing at someone else who will say the same thing and then call that proof; and (2) do you argue that I cannot find the same information elsewhere? Dawkins has been recorded saying that he does not know if there is a god and he does not dismiss it, but sides on the side currently that there must not be one. That is agnosticism, not atheism.
1. On what basis are you regarding Richard Dawkins as an idiot? Because you don't agree with him? I hate to tell you, not only is he quite intelligent, he has proof to back up his scientific work. He's one of the most preeminent evolutionary biologists on the planet, and is well respected. He is no idiot.
2. You are using an incorrect definition common among Christians. As the next part of your post deals more with that, I will explain below.
I'm sorry but "
atheism" means a belief that no deity exists. However you want to subdivide that is up to you and your "denominations." But once the allowance that a deity MAY exist come into play, you are agnostic -- regardless of which "denomination" of agnosticism you choose.
Choose your belief system ... there's a name for that.
\
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, that does not necessarily mean you believe no deity exists.
When talking about the existence of something, there is two possible options you can have... You can either have a positive belief that it exists, or you lack a positive belief that it exists.
If you are undecided, that means you lack a positive belief.
For example, say I had an overturned coffee cup on my desk... and I told you there was a marble under the cup. Furthermore you are not allowed to move or touch the cup, or use some kind of technology to determine a marble is in there. All you can simply do is guess.
You have no way of determining if the marble is actually there, so you have no reason to accept the claim there is one. It doesn't mean you actively oppose the idea that a marble exists under the cup, however without evidence, you can't assume it to be true. You lack a positive belief in the existence of the Marble.
That is the atheistic position towards god.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism deals with a belief in knowledge as to the nature of God and/or the universe. In a nutshell, a Gnostic believes ultimate knowledge is possible, an agnostic believes ultimate knowledge is impossible.
So the two are not mutually exclusive, and an agnostic position has nothing to do with belief in existence. Theism/Atheism deals with existence, Gnosticism/Agnosticism deals with knowledge on the nature of such a being. You can have both Gnostic and Agnostic Theists and Atheists.
Gnostic Theist: Believes in the existence of God, and believes we can determine ultimate knowledge as to the nature of such a being.
Agnostic Theist: Believes in the existence of God, but does not believe we can know the ultimate nature of God (from the sounds of it, you fall in that category). Anyone who uses the excuse that we can't understand God's ways as he's higher than us or whatnot, is taking an Agnostic position. In fact, most Christian Churches are Agnostic institutions.
Gnostic Atheist: Does not have a belief in God, but believes if such a being actually does exist, we must be able to determine it's ultimate nature.
Agnostic Atheist: Does not have a belief in God, but believes if such a being actually does exist we'd have no way of determining it's ultimate nature. (The vast majority of Atheists fall in this category)
The justification taken for that position is because we have no way of knowing or testing the supernatural. If a God does exist, we have no known way to determine how he works, or to figure out exactly what he is.
In the case of Dawkins, he does not hold a belief in the existence of a god (Atheist) but is also of the opinion that if such a being exists, we could never determine exactly what that being is, what ultimate powers it has, or understand everything about it (Agnostic). So yes, he is an Agnostic Atheist.
Christians often skew the definitions, hopefully that clears it up a bit.
No one said it was news. It was only a play on "videos" to show that posting something that says what you say does not constitute proof. We know that Dawkins and Behe have butted heads on these issues -- quoting Dawkins to "prove" the eye could evolve is silly.
I linked a fairly easy to watch video to show you how in fact the eye did evolve. And not only did the eye evolve, all it's intermediate stages of evolution are still present in the modern world.
You brought up Francis Collins before... So lets use him if you don't agree with Dawkins. He is in total agreement with Dawkins on evolution, and even stated that the genetic evidence by itself is enough to confirm evolution / common descent. All of the transitional fossils and other evidence we have just adds more evidence to the pile though.... Hell, even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution as scientific fact.
Michael Behe's work does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and therefore was not accepted by the scientific community. You're taking the words over someone who's work has been repeatedly discredited over some of the most respected biologists in the world. If that's not a clear bias, I don't know what is.
