Skeptic Vincent Bugliosi Defines the Indefinable

(I grabbed this from the JOHN & KEN SHOW in October of 2011) I was surprised in listening to Vincent Bugliosi in an interview about his book, Divinity of Doubt: The God Question. Surprised because considering his book on debunking pretty much every JFK conspiracy known to man, I would expect him to realize his fundamental mistake that taints his whole view.

➤ This upload is specifically for a post on my site titled: "The Illogical Thinking of An “Agnostic” (RIP Bugliosi)" (https://tinyurl.com/2az9ejbz)

So when I heard him say the following (below right), I immediately knew he was a second rate skeptic churning every old cliche over again for a new generation. So here we should define for the layman what an agnostic is and why some say that there are two kinds… one being indistinguishable from an atheist.
_________________
■ Atheism: The belief that there is no God. This is typically the conviction that there is no personal Creator of the universe, and no powerful, incorporeal, perfect being in heaven or anywhere else.

■ Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. The humble agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. The less humble agnostic says that you don’t, either. The least humble agnostic thinks that we can’t ever really know.

Tom Morris, 𝑃ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐷𝑢𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑒𝑠 (Foster City, CA: IDG Books, 1999), 238.
_________________

Okay, most philosophy texts and dictionaries will at times make this distinction. Again, that there are two types of agnostics. A soft agnostic says: “I do not know. You may. Therefore I may want to dialogue because you may have information I do not.” A hard agnostic says: “I do not know, and neither can you.” Vincent is in reality no different than the atheists he critiques.