Neil Degrasse Tyson

[Napoléon]

It's not my definition. William Rowe is a philosopher and that's his definition.  I quoted it because he's saying that people who disbelieve there's a God are no more rational than people who believe there is a God.  This goes further than the online Oxford Dictionary which just says - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."  I thought that an interesting point of view.

I think we all know what I mean when I say "your definition". Let's not be overly pedantic.

And it's a nice point of view (well, not really, but I'm not here to argue philosophy, personally I think it's a bullshit POV), but massively sidetracking from any kind of point and is totally irrelevant. A definition that directly implies claims like this is somewhat of a dodgy definition IMO.

What we do know from that video is that NDT disagrees with atheists who claim that all agnostics are really atheists. He's also based his definition on what Thomas Henry Huxley said.

He can disagree all he likes, doesn't make him right.

I quoted Ramachandran to show his idea of what being an agnostic is. He doesn't believe in a personal God but is agnostic about some of the Hindu deities. This suggests that individual agnostics mightn't see themselves exactly as philosophers and dictionaries say they should

Again, his idea is not a definition. It's just his idea. All these people seem to have differing ideas of what agnosticism is and by your own admission here, don't view themselves as what actual definitions would describe them as. Well I'm sorry, the individual person doesn't get to pick and choose what words mean and dictate to everyone else that this is what it should mean specifically for them. Definitions exist for a reason. And I come back to the whole point here: saying it's rude that NDT is labelled as an atheist on his wiki page, when by all accounts he is one, is pretty stupid IMHO.

Maybe NDT is confused about the real meaning of the word 'atheist'.

Then you've just proved my point for me.

After all, a lot of people in the now defunct Richard Dawkins forum believed that atheism is some kind of ideology full of shoulds and oughts and missions such as stamping out religion.

It's not these people who get to dictate what the definition of a word should be though. These aren't some mystical and abstract concepts we're talking about here that have a variety of multiple meanings. They're two words with very straightforward meanings that by all accounts are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. What exactly about this is so hard to comprehend?

Maybe he just thinks that the existence of some kind of deity is impossible to prove or disprove so he doesn't want to be bothered with the question. We'll never really know unless somebody from this forum emails him and asks him to provide exact details of his views.  All we can be certain of is that he'd be very annoyed if the email included the statement that he's actually an atheist.

How do you come to the conclusion that because of his agnosticism, he's thus not an atheist?

The existence of a deity likely is impossible to prove/disprove. Yet last I checked, it has no bearing on someone being identified as an atheist or not. In the definition of atheism, it has absolutely fuck all about proving gods, knowing about gods or proofs of gods. It concerns nothing but belief, and lack of belief. You believe in a god? Theist. You lack belief in a god? Atheist.

It's. Not. That. Hard.

You seem to be adding all this baggage and ignoring the fairly simple question "does he meet the definition for being an atheist?", the answer is a resounding yes. But ofcourse, you'd need to know the basic definition first in order to get that. Seems to me that's the stumbling block.

Here's a video which raises questions about the human brain.

Literally, nothing to do with anything.