I just remember him specifically saying he isn't an atheist but he especially didn't believe in Christianity or life after death.
But at the same time he believed past, present, and future were an illusion, so maybe he figured he was always alive dead and unborn simultaneously.
God speaks through random numbers.
> it piqued my interest if most scientists either have nontraditional religious beliefs or don't have them at all.
Taking Veeky Forums as a representative sample of scientists is not a very good way to answer this question. Look for actual scientific polls of scientists.
It creates factions among students. Kids who avoid prayer to be cool, kids who join in to fit in, kids who bully other kids based on their decision, etc.. It also creates a bad dynamic between the teacher and students as it may affect the way the teacher treats certain groups of students, even possibly at a subconscious level.
It literally is of no benefit to anyone involved.
Not only that but if it's while the teacher is on the clock then that's valuable school time being wasted, time that taxpayers of many different beliefs paid for. If a teacher leads a prayer group on their own time outside of school there could still be a conflict of interest where certain students may join in order to get preferential treatment or more access to the teacher.
There is also the possibility of it inviting more religious discourse into the classroom. For instance if the course covers the theory of evolution then students may feel it is appropriate to ask how this relates to other religious beliefs. Moreover if the teacher refuses to answer their questions or is otherwise unable to it may make the students feel the teacher is a hypocrite, or worse they've been placed into a position where they're forced to teach material they do not themselves believe to have merit in truth.
This.
Veeky Forums is mostly undergraduate STEM students and pop-science fucktards who come to Veeky Forums thinking they're hanging out with scientists.
There isn't a standard interpretation for those terms, how they are viewed will vary by context, region, and community. It is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
That said, I do think there is value in recognizing the difference between those who just happen to not be religious (e.g. raised without religion and not really interested in them) and those who believe with conviction that no religions are true. Moreover one should also be aware of the difference between those who believe with conviction that no religions are true and also believe that it is good and meaningful to coexist with the religious beliefs of others vs those who think religious beliefs are a dangerous and destructive forces in society.
Perhaps it may be valuable to observe those who have converted to atheism from a religion separately from those who were never religious. Specifically because many who convert to atheism do so on the grounds that they or others have been wronged by religion and thus their approach to religion tends to be much more polarized than those who just think that shit is dumb.
tl;dr: Just like religious people and their labels, you will find a great deal of diversity within them and should therefore be careful not to paint them all with the same brush.
video related: not typical religious folk
youtube.com
>Abrahamic
way to be random internet dude, you actually grouped those the way that most everyone with half a brain and any understanding of the three actually sees them.
if by "agnostics" you mean "does not positively believe in god but not sure"
thats an atheist
your poll is shit
>doesn't know what the word "Gnostic" means
Stop parroting crap from reddit.
Christianity
jews
muslims
all three are the exact fucking same if you actually understood anything about their cosmology and history you'd know they are the same god with minor bullshit disagreements over who was or wasn't a prophet or incarnation of the same primary deity all three share in common.