There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic.

It's been fun. Before I submit my final arguments I am going to first restate the resolution: "There Is No Such Thing as an Agnostic". With that said I will address my opponent's round three arguments. A. "There has been tons of arguing over the definition of atheism, but I am confident that most would agree that an accurate definition of an atheist is "one who does not believe in the existence of every purported deity thus far". Now remember, I never said the atheist KNOWS this, but BELIEVES this. " As I stated last round, my opponents definition of an Atheist actually describes an Agnostic. I will extend that argument. B. "Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge. " Belief is a result of knowledge (refer to definition of belief). One can believe in varying degrees and this is why it applies to Agnosticism. This brings us to your next point. .. C. "this is when the spectrum of theistic probability comes in, something my opponent has yet to address" You site Richard Dawkins' spectrum of probabilities in your opening argument in making this point. I will use this same info against you. Richard Dawkins' spectrum of probabilities are as follows: 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know. ' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there. ' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God. ' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable. ' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical. ' 6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there. ' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one. ' (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Dawkins recognizes a place for Agnosticism (4 and 5) and a separate place for atheists (6 and 7) Philosopher Jack Smart also addresses this and also specifies a place for Agnosticism. He says: "Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo') describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully. " If we take away Agnosticism, what do we call people in the middle (Smart) or 4's and 5's (Dawkins). D. "There have been philosophical views such as agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. If we were to incorporate the definition of agnosticism, then an agnostic atheism would describe the majority of atheists now. I find it irrational to claim to be just an agnostic, taking neither side. You can always apply concepts such as spectrum of theistic probability, burden of proof, etc. " You are correct that agnostic can apply to various levels of theism. Using theistic probability though we do see that there is potential to land in the middle. This is where the term agnostic makes its bed. At best you argue that the term agnostic is used too broadly, in my estimation you have not successfully argued that there is no place for Agnosticism. I have met my burden of proof and identified a clear use for Agnosticism. I have shown that there is such thing as Agnostic, it in fact exists right in the middle of absolute theism and absolute atheism. With that I will conclude my arguments and leave it up to the judges. As I see there are many on this site, a couple on this message board, that have unfavorable views of Agnostics. I ask that those holding these views judge on the merit of the debate, not pro/con on Agnostics. To vote con you only need to acknowledge that non-commitment to the existence or non-existence of a god exists. Thank you.