Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

1. a PREFACE_PALM Since it seems my opponent is now grasping at Straw-men to add to his list of fallacies, I would like to take some time to go over our arguments to expose the constant fallacious logic of my opponent that obscures reality, while at the same time asking voters to truly consider the logic behind each statement. Con says my arguments are confusing. Confusing or not, just because something is confusing, doesn't necessarily mean that that something is false. Is that sentence confusing also? Or does it just require some introspection & logic to see that that statement is logically true? I would also like to point out that "bad form" to me, is taking petty ad hominem shots at one's punctuation, with limited space to provide objective reasoning, and all the while complaining about the length of discourse on sufficiently heavy topics that may require more than 3 sentences to explain one's ideas clearly. Also, I would like to remind Con that neither is this debate measured by one's ability to alphabetize, copy/paste, point fingers at one's "form". 2. PLEADING NOT GUILTY I have already refuted Con's arguments using sound logic, and Con can only attempt to reduce my position by misrepresenting them, while ironically blaming me for the same. When in fact, all I have done is attempted to be honest in this debate, as a sideeff exposing the fallacies in Con's arguments. Exposing fallacies are not in any way attempts to insult or take shots at Con. I have not misrepresented or "twisted [my opponent's] words against [him.]." In fact, I took a direct quote, from his argument that was indirectly granting me the correctness of my definitions from the beginning. I further paraphrased his correct position (or rebuttal) against my resolution, and explained using LOGIC that even in the 21st century, these words have not changed in their meaning. If a group uses a word incorrectly and unjustifiably to those whom originally claimed that word to label themselves first, then that minority does not have a justified claim to that label. You can call yourself whatever you wish, it doesn't make it necessarily true. A group of villains can call themselves Heroic villains, but that doesn't make them good guys. And as long as agnostics were before "agnostic atheists", agnostics CAN call that label a MISNOMER. and THAT again is LOGIC. is it that confusing? All Pro can do is say he has "Credible sources." that back his definitions (or shall I say assertions? to which he has yet to provide any logical PROOF). I already pointed out why his sources were NOT credible, but BIASED. Being in a position of authority does not make someone credible. It would appear, Pro does not know what an appeal to authority fallacy even is. Richard Dawkins or any other "agnostic" atheist is not an unbiased source, and cannot give objective insight into the matter. Dawkins is a credible authority on Biology and Evolution, He is NOT a credible source on philosophy, politics, sociology, psychology, theology or atheism. THAT is Logic. You do not REQUIRE a credible source when you say something OBVIOUSLY TRUE. Logic. When it comes to providing an objective definition for certain types of ideologies, it is important to note that any -ISM, is not necessarily a label for an individual to describe themselves, but a set of pre-established ideological frameworks, in which individuals fall into. Therefore, it's kinda ridiculous to think..someone can label themselves by a pre-established term, then decide what that label means "for me", especially if it doesn't fit with the original meaning. Doesn't it? 3. A CREDIBLE SOURCE According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God." "Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology." -Thomas Huxley...the first agnostic atheist. "According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[2]" 4. THE STRAW AGNOSTIC All agnostics, from Hume, Kant, Huxley, Bertrand, Ingersoll, to Noam, whom all seem to agree with your atheist position, vehemently opposed the label atheist for themselves. Instead, all of them chose the term agnostic. It is my argument that those of lesser intellect and scientific understanding have latched on to the term, even hijacking the narrative and agnostic tenets, to represent their own irrational view of Atheism. subtly denying of God's existence. Each of the above characters specifically states their position is the "suspension of judgement and that they neither believe nor disbelieve. During their time, it was the Christian audience to whom they spoke, therefore they speak more about why don't believe. Nowadays, we have a good number of atheist readers, so that we can speak more about why we don't DISBELIEVE. It's illogical to say the original definition of agnosticism is outdated. Just because a word is old... we don't go around changing what it means. He says it's "spiritual apathy", yet it's not spiritual anything. Agnosticism derives from one's deep and honest pondering about the nature of God, requiring a high degree of mental discipline and studiousness, not to mention HONESTY, that some are simply not equipped with. Even if I agreed, most agnostics are spiritually apathetic that doesn't mean Agnosticism IS spiritual apathy. First, the agnostic would have you define what you mean by "spirit." Finally, Con thinks "the onus is on theists." As I keep saying over and over again, the onus is on Atheists and Theists. I do not know why Con thinks I am saying the onus is on agnostics. Con has outright fabricated a position to argue against, then provided a fallacious rebuttal against his fabricated argument. Well done. Con does not only misrepresent my ideas, but even that of Socrates. Con does not seem to know what an "assertion" is. Con believes an "assertion' is THE positive claim between two arguments. This is false. An assertion as Socrates used it is simply a "strong claim." In this debate, both Pro and Con are making assertions. If theists are making assertions about God's existence, Atheists are making assertions about the lack of evidence for God's existence. The agnostic is asserting that both sides need to define God, before making either of those claims. 5. CLEAN UP Here are some classic example of Con's straw-men tactics. Con says "Here's the real deal: Pro is trying to tell all atheists that they're wrong. Even worse, Pro is saying that atheists cannot define themselves." Um.. no Con. Pro never said ALL atheists are wrong OR that they cannot define themselves.... this is preposterous..and almost laughable from how my logic flies right over Con's head. Pro SAID Atheists cannot call themselves Agnostic, because it is not an appropriate, fitting, or accurate definition for their ideological beliefs. Quite different. Pro SAID, ...IF AN (not all) atheist lies about their position, then we are justified in not believing their self claimed position. If a white man calls himself the "n" word, because he feels like it, I guess since he knows himself better than anyone else we must believe the white man is really black. Finally, in Con's syllogism the major premise is not necessarily true. the premises of an argument should always be necessarily true. I thought that was obvious. 6. CONCLUSION At this point, it seems Con must stop calling himself an atheist to remain honest about his "lacking a belief." Atheism being a disbelief, is a belief and an assertion about the existence of God or lack thereof. And that assertion and belief will require knowledge, since atheists claim their beliefs are based on evidence (ie. know