Ignorant Atheists?

[Edwardo Piet]

On the "no true scotsman" thing, you originally said:

So he/she is not a full scientist.

I think that counts as a no true scotsman argument. Your argument fails on the account that there are many secular and religious scientists who do science to explain the world, and do religion to explain the "great questions". I.e. they keep the science separate from the philosophy.

But when did I change my definition? Isn't that what it says its about on wikipedia?
Also I never said all murder. If you were suggesting I did.
When did I change my definition? How is it 'no true scotsman'?
I will say that if I changed my definition then it does appear that I am guilty of a 'no true scotsman'. But I haven't changed my opinion, just the words in that case. I'm not trying to cover anything up. I believe if I did I change it to true its because of the confusion between: 1. Being a scientist =ANYONE who practices the scientific method. 2. Anyone who has a P.H.D in science and 3. Anyone who is scientific.
I do understand that if a religious person 'practices the scientific method' he can be called a scientist. But what I mean is that then you might as well call ANYONE a scientist if its just about practicing the scientific method.
If its about being scientific however, a religious scientist really be called a scientist when their faith is so antiscientific? And they ignore one of the most important scientific questions of all? That's very unscientific indeed. Its arguably anti-scientific as far as I'm concerned.
I guess I'm still getting confused about the 'how much of a scientist you have to be to be considered a scientist thing'.
Because I'm not bothered about the P.h.d. I don't think that counts. And if its just simply practicing the scientific method and thinking logically, then to some extent aren't we all scientists?
So the thing is perhaps part of the trouble is deciding how scientific you actually have to be, to be considered a scientist? :S
So I agree with Leo that I am certainly mixing up some issues here. Sorry But I don't think I'm guilty of the 'no true scotsman' for two reasons:
1. When did I change my definition exactly?
2. Even if I did change my definition thats because I'm confused not because I changed it deliberately so my point remains valid. Because when IF I earlier didn't say true, when I earlier said "scientist" I meant exactly the same as I do now by "true scientist" the only reason I would have changed it would be because by "scientist" people thought I meant: "Just anybody with a P.h.d, or ANYONE who practices the scientific method".

So what I'm wondering is how can this be settled until we decide: How scientific you actually have to be to be considered a scientist.
I think that's where the confusion lies. But I certainly don't think its just "anyone with a p.h.d" because you can get complete idiots with p.h.d s who don't deserve to be called a scientist. And then brilliant scientists who don't have a p.h.d who certainly SHOULD be considered scientists.