Atheists cannot be Agnostic at the same time.

This will be a succinct reply. 1. Introduction: Perhaps, in the distant past, agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive. But that is no longer the case. Now, especially in the twenty-first century, the two categories are not completely separated from each other. Instead, they overlap like two links in a chain. 2. Clarification As a result of this analogy, there are now at least three categories: 1. Absolute atheist: "It is absolutely impossible for God to exist. Therefore, I do not believe." 2. Agnostic atheist: "There is no evidence to verify the existence of God. Therefore, I do not believe." 3. Absolute agnostic: "It is absolutely impossible to know if God exists. Therefore, I do not believe." Categories 1 and 3 represent the extremes. However, category 2 is a compromise of both extremes. Category 2 is the overlap. Thus, agnosticism and atheism are no longer mutually exclusive. 3. Refutations: There are five points that Pro raised that I would like to attempt to discredit. 1. "Agnosticism and Atheism are mutually exclusive." First of all, where are Pro's sources? So far, Pro has provided no evidence in support of his claims. (see refutation 5 below) Secondly, Dr. Richard Dawkins' "Scale of Religiosity" is now only a reasonable model of human deistic belief, but it is also a widely accepted one as well. The "Scale of Religiosity" proves that there is overlap between agnosticism and atheism. Dr. Dawkins is a known atheist and scholar; he is a much more credible authority than Pro. 2. "Agnostics do not call themselves Atheistic Agnostics..." Of course not! I invented the term to easily convey my argument in this debate. Agnostics call themselves agnostics and atheists call themselves atheists, but their titles do not necessarily solidify their stances. Just as Republican and Democrats disagree on matters within their own parties, so agnostics and atheists may disagree as well. 3. "...my [opponent's] proposed definitions seem to carry a bit of Bias (being taken from an atheist website) ..." First and foremost, why is "bias" capitalized? Gasp! The rules of grammar have been broken! Secondly, why is it wrong for me to define "atheism" according to how real-life atheists define themselves? If anything, this is the right bias. Would it be better if I used God's definition of "atheism" instead (i.e. heathen who will burn in Hell)? 4. "An Atheist, contrary to what an Atheist will tell you, is not someone simply 'lacking a belief' ..." Geez, what's up with the inappropriate capitalization? Did you write your response in a hurry? That would explain why your arguments are haphazard, to put it kindly. So, you cannot trust an atheist to tell you what he/she believes or, in this case, does not believe in? That is absurd. I feel like I should have to prove how absurd your argument is, but I will do it anyway. Imagine if you tried to order a burger at a restraint and the cashier told you that wasn't really what you wanted. The cashier is not a psychic; the cashier is a fool. In the same way, Pro is trying to tell atheists what they disbelieve in. That, my friend, is bad form. That is a manipulation of the facts. You cannot do that because, for starters, you aren't them! If you were them, you'd know you're wrong. 5. "I would beg the audience ... to ... lean on their intellectual discernment...by using [logic]... [and not] appealing to authorities." If Pro's arguments were logical, surely someone out there agrees with his/her viewpoint. Authorities provide additional support to logical arguments; they tend to make them more credible, especially if the source is reputable. Logic is the bare minimum for rational debate. I have gone the proverbial "extra mile" in researching and citing sources. There is no way in heck that I am going down to Pro's level. Let Pro find some sources and catch up if he/she can. Having dismissed Pro's arguments, I advance to my conclusion. 4. Conclusion. I have not covered everything that Pro raised because, honestly, most of it is repetitive and unpersuasive. Here's the paramount point that secures me the win: THIS debate is impossible for Pro to win because he must absolutely prove that there is no middle-ground between agnosticism and atheism. Pro must prove that the two are irreconcilable. But given the obvious overlap between the two, Pro immediately fails his goal. Pro's resolution is indefensible. Thank you. I await Pro in the third round.