Agnostics vs Atheists

RE:"Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge." Only if this agnostic is not also an atheist. :) RE: "Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." " Hmm? I don't see how it would be qualified as sneaky. The terms I've been using are well established as confirmed by the sources which I posted in the previous round. RE: "However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist." As much as a difference as there is between a tree with branches and leaves and a tree with branches without leaves I suppose. RE: "You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility." How is not believing any different from strict denial? I mean sure, one can use semantics to place heavy emphasis on "strict", but that's not what we're here to do. ;) The fact of the matter is that atheism is limited to two positions (well actually, three if we include the incredbly small sect who is apathetic to the "knowledge" aspect): Gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism. The kind of atheism whom he refers to would be classified as a gnostic atheist as an individual of this stance is of the mindset that there is no possibility; that he/she KNOWS that God does not exist. My point being is that atheism alone is not something which does not open the door for possibility, contrary to what my opponent has been insisting throughout this debate. RE: "Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. " Precisely my point. Atheism alone says nothing about knowledge. RE: "Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance." Whoa whoa whoa. Lets stop right there. Who said there was no knowledge? Atheism merely states nothing about knowledge, but it does not mean that one is not basing their belief or lack of belief on knowledge. When one claims to be an atheist, ALL we know so far is that this one individual does not believe in the existence of a deity. We know nothing else. If I say I believe my "would-be" girlfriend is a good person, you don't know whether or not I am basing this claim of belief on experiences or faith alone. Belief says nothing about knowledge, but that most certainly does not imply that there is no knowledge. The reason I went about defining the two halves of atheism (gnostic and agnostic) was to clarify on this matter. RE: "Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. " Well it's either that or we are left with concluding that they simply cannot be compared. The purpose of my arguments in this debate was to show that my opponents reasons for concluding that one was better (which I had known since R1) than the other was faulty given that his rendering of both ideas (agnosticism and atheism) was faulty. RE: "Logic favors agnosticism." Not necessarily. Seeing as how we've both agreed to use the "lack of belief" paradigm on atheism, one could conclude that you are an atheist. In addition, if we are both to agree to the notion that there is no evidence, having a lack of belief is logically justified. :D RE: "atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism")" The only attempt at supporting this claim (that atheism is illogical) of which I've seen is the "argument from ignorance" point (which concludes that atheist believe there is no god since there is no evidence). As can be indicated in my second round, I've already trounced this argument by pointing out that not all atheist are atheist for the same reasons (many gnostic atheist have insisted that they have evidence and argumention which disproves God and there are many who are simply agnostic atheist--whcih my opponent agrees as being a logical position). Thus essentially, the above is simply ad nauseum. My opponent fails on the grounds they he has yet to dispute my contention on this matter. CONCLUSION: The mere fact that my opponent even agrees that any form of atheism is logical should demonstrate that he acknowledges the problem with his argument. He makes assumptions on what it takes to be an atheist, only to end up ignoring the flexibility of this position. It can very easily meet the ideas which agnosticism proposes, hence why I've argued that there is equality (of course, one can go about saying that they are not comparible based on this information). In any case, I've established that there is no reason for us to conclude that agnosticism (at least from how my opponent has rendered it) is greater than atheism and thus urge that you vote CON. Thanks for the debate. :D