The problem isn't with religious people, it's with fundamentalists. Religion is largely only a cultural approach to various philosophies and theologies.

Only, Fundamentalism isn't limited to Religion, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of Fundamentalist Internet Missionaries are of the atheist brand. Many of those atheists often demonstrate prejudice and ignorance against people of different culture.

Their chief missionary strategy is the straw-man argument, essentially they build up a straw man and say "that is what you religious people believe" and then proceed to engage in fisticuffs! against the straw man of their own construction, and then gleefully jump up and down with their atheist friends at their triumphant victory against the straw man they created. Although, they have completely failed to raise a challenge against the actual arguments.

It's a sign of how powerful religion is and how warped peoples minds are in the religion that they feel quoting bible passages is the proof that they talk about that god exists.

And also, whether it's Christianity or Islam, what difference does it make? They are both elaborate myths so really whichever you want to 'debate' is fruitless. The 'enlightened' will tell us God said this, Allah said that. Did he now? How perfectly charming! It's all tosh.

All three terms - atheistic, theistic, agnostic are mutually exclusive. If the video claims it's possible to be both agnostic/theistic, or agnostic/atheistic to the same degree, then it's fudging the issue of belief and non-belief with oxymoronic statements.

To summarize the terms' real meanings...

Atheistic - certain non-belief in a divine creator, supreme being(s), god or gods.

Theistic - certain belief in any of the above (encompasses polytheistic as well as monotheistic faiths)

Agnostic - belief related to anything divine/supernatural is unprovable and unfactual, and therefore limited to subjective experience.

A good case in point. Richard Dawkins when asked in an interview how convinced he was that there isn't a god (any god for that matter), on a scale of 1 to 10, replied with '9'. Therefore it could be said he is 90% atheist, 10% agnostic. The three terms atheist, theist, agnostic can be considered on a sliding scale or pendulum, rather than an on-off switch. They are interchangeable, but not in the way the video described.    

Where are you pulling this from? I'm just talking about what it means in a religious debate. Its actually pretty standard stuff if you pick up a philosophy of religion textbook or any academic book dealing with the subject.

It really just seems to me that with these definitions, someone is trying to swell the ranks of atheists. I mean people who do not believe in a God are now atheists? That's a standard statement for an agnostic....not an atheists. The agnostic says, "I do not believe God exists, but I also don't believe God does not exists." It seems like your defining atheism way too broadly, and the definitions themselves are very misleading. For example,

"Agnostic Atheist - A person who does not believe in the existance of a deity, OR --more specifically-- believes in the inexistance of a deity, but accepts that they cannot know for certain."

The two bolded sections are two completely different claims that are being used to define the same term......which should not be done with any definition. The first claim is compatible with someone also saying, "I do not believe in the nonexistence of a deity." For someone making the second claim, they could not then say "I believe in the existence of a deity" without contradicting themselves.In fact, all these definition are doing is using agnosticism as a synonym for skepticism, which is unneeded given that we already have the word skepticism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/-a quick read on the subject. I will admit that the definitions are kind of arbitrary, but they are there for a reason....primarily to make discussion easier. The definitions you provided really just serve to complicate things for no reason at all.

Since when did religion = christianity ????? so much ignorance in the OP

If a person thinks he knows something, then he believes. Knowing something to be true doesn't necessitate it being fact - it depends on what a person's beliefs are.

As human beings we are wired generally speaking to be followers of something. This could be religion or it may be a political system, and it could even be a person of great charisma. We are all gifted with our own private thought domain which is our conciousness and we make the conscious choice to follow or not follow something. I have no issues with anyone believing anything they want to believe in as long as they do not attempt to force their convictions onto me. And yes this includes both religious extremists and hardcore atheists.

The issue I see is that there are extremists on both sides who are convinced that they are in the right and are trying to prove it which is the ultimate example of engaging in futility . I have had many debates with friends but while we have a lively and interesting debate in the end we generally reach a stalemate and switch topics. It is an interesting debate to have for sure but it's when people start getting emotional or express disrespect that the debate becomes pointless. And this has been fairly well demonstrated in this thread.

The problem stems from the fact that religions do not grant respect and for too long people of faith have held too much power and influenced (often negatively) large segments of society, even ruling countries in some cases. If religion was merely a past time that was kept in the background and was largely ignored when making decisions on laws that rule the land then that would be fine and then yes, respect would be granted. But this is not the case.

Richard Dawkins makes excellent points in his documentaries and books. I'll watch some vids and post them here if I can. But how can we respect a myth? A fairytale? It is not worthy of respect when people use their religion to impose hideous bigoted opinions on society all in the 'knowledge' that they are doing the right thing because their respective deity grants them the right to do so in their name. It's ridiculous. So do I respect religion? No. I find it abhorrent.

Yeah, I'm just not buying these definitions. They seem lazy and poorly constructed. The problem is that if someone knows something, they have a belief, however, if they do not know something, this does not mean they don't have a belief. Someone can actually belief something without knowing it to be true...something the video actually got right.  : )

Throwing knowledge into the equation is really uneccesary when talking about belief in God. I will say that after doing some quick searches, it seems the term agnostisism is used quite differently in everyday language than it is in scholarly debates on religion. When I took some classes on it in college, agnosticism is always tied to belief, but it seems everyday usage ties it to knowledge.....just needless confusion. I just think it would be easier to use agnosticism for belief and skepticism for knowledge.

The problem with definitions is that they are always simplifications of reality. There are so many different "dimensions" to words, but you have to simplify them so you can actually communicate.....kind of the problem with creating your own definitions.....nobody knows what you're talking about.  : )

Circular logic is the bread and butter of a religious debate. Just a sampling of the crazy stuff that turned me off of religion:

1) There's an all powerful man in the sky, who watches every minute of yours and everyone else's life. Who knows every action you will take in life.

How is that even something you can say to someone with a straight face? The concept is beyond ridiculous.

2) Said all powerful being gave us free will.

Wait so, he gave us free will, but knows everything that we'll do in our lives. If the person who created you knows everything you'll do before you do, you don't have free will. You're just following the script.

3) God is a loving god.

Who created the devil? The devil was the very first angel created. If big daddy there really know everything of the past, present and future, then he knew exactly what he was creating. And the angels are also created in God's image iirc, which means all the evil of the devil is a part of go.

4) God created humans. It's obvious, because something can't come from nothing.

Then who created god? And who created the creator of god? And who created the creator of the creator of god. Ad infinitum.

It's absolutely insane to think that some magic book written by our ancient ancestors in the desert has all the answers to modern life. That book is a collection of myths, glorified war stories and morality tales meant to show people how to live a just life. Nothing's wrong with that, but the blood stained history of religion has tainted any moral authority they may have once had.