Quote:
Skeptical atheism sounds a lot like agnostic to me but then words are just tools nothing is exact.


That's just it. A lot of people would describe skeptical atheism as 'agnosticism', but that is incorrect.

Skeptical atheism makes no affirmative assertions without evidence. Do I say "there is no god?" No. Do I say "there is no god that I believe in?" Yes.

A lot of people think agnosticism is a theological "I don't know", but it is more than that. Agnosticism goes beyond a simple "I don't know" and also adds "it is impossible to know". That is an affirmative statement that I am not willing to make. If a god came down and revealed himself to me, I am not going to stick my head in the sand and deny it. In fact, I'd wager that most self-proclaimed atheists would say the same thing. But don't tell me that a book written by believers to convince unbelievers is a convincing proof (pick a book; there are plenty of them)

Quote:
Electricity to a person 2000 years ago would appear supernatural. One must be careful to not limit one's world view Solly based on what we believe now. Quantum physics is challenging right now the very perception of matter, surfaces and reality.


Yes, but the process that resulted in a theory about electricity or quantum mechanics did so through a naturalistic worldview. There were no "leaps of faith", so that makes it more plausible.

If a futuristic being "proved" to me that it was a god, then I could either choose to accept that statement or contend that it was actually just technologically advanced enough to fool me. However, from my perspective what is the difference between the two? At some point, there is no way to distinguish between "supernatural" and "advanced technology". Our definitions of vague concepts like "god" break down in extreme situations.

Quote:
It is what I believe on some level science is collectively striving for. An objective view of the world a "true" understanding. Not all people who claim to be scientists do this however and often believe one thing and use some experiment to prove their original belief. Which is hardly what I would call objective.


Absolutely. To say a scientist is "objective" would be crazy. All individuals, no matter how hard they try, cannot be truly objective. But to say that science is objective is far more accurate because the scientific method provides a mechanism to correct for the subjective errors of individual scientists. Got cold fusion?

Quote:
Unfortunately the way our brains process the universe is actually not the same as how it actually works.


Right, and that is why I think it is ridiculous to say "there is no god". Nobody knows that. You can say "there is no evidence of a god", but that's about it. We know far less about the nature of the universe than we think.