is it even possible for the religious to not use the tightest of circular logic?

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*nochannel *talks

This does not belong in the meme channel.

This video has been removed from all channels (Meme, Talks) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by Skeeve. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by Skeeve.

He seriously did not need 6 minutes for this video.

Gnosticism: Having knowledge. E.g. Theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is the belief there are no gods.
A suitable definition of belief is "having personal knowledge".

Agnosticm: Lack of knowledge/belief.


If you present the definitions as such (with literary back up), you'll find that most "atheists" describe themselves as agnostic. Unfortunately, the common usage of atheist these days is what agnostic is defined as above so it's a mite confusing. Dawkins describes himself as not being certain that there isn't a god so technically he'd be agnostic.


It's just semantics though and I think that's all this video was meant to be about.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheists, atheism, lack of belief' to 'atheists, atheism, lack of belief, logic, semantics, burden of proof' - edited by xxovercastxx

This was a really interesting argument.