Any definition that conflates Atheism with Agnosticism is not Atheism by any sense.

IMPORTANT: I want to point out that my opponent’s resolution is that “any definition that conflates Atheism with Agnosticism is not Atheism by any sense.” Therefore I only have to demonstrate that there is a definition out there which conflates Atheism and Agnosticism, and it is Atheism in some sense. The bar is pretty low and as I have shown in round 1: “an agnostic atheist” is an atheist in some sense, so my opponent’s resolution is negated. That alone should merit voting in my favor. However, in this round I will offer more rebuttals of my opponent’s claims, which I hope will solidify the win. Pro: “What most theories of knowledge purport knowledge to be is namely, a justified true ‘belief.’” Response: I believe my opponent is referring to the tripartite theory of knowledge [1], but that theory has been refuted by Gettier cases [2] which show that some justified true beliefs do not constitute knowledge. Furthermore, I would posit that knowledge might be better defined as the “mental grasp of the facts of reality.” [3] Thus, there is a distinction between knowledge and belief, which was also demonstrated in the table which I presented in Round 1. Pro: “In simple prose, gnosticism is logically equivalent to saying ‘I can know.’ While agnosticism is logically equivalent to saying ‘I cannot know.’ The former affirms knowledge, the latter denies knowledge.” Response: Since I have shown that knowledge and belief are different, the above statement from my opponent actually reaffirms my position. Therefore, I would refer my opponent back to the chart from round 1 to show how the terms “agnostic” and “atheist” can be conflated together without redefining atheism. My opponent’s remaining argument is based on the false assumption that knowledge is a justified belief and is subsequently not sound. Even my opponent’s own source (http://plato.stanford.edu...) clearly supports my position: “‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it.” Again, this demonstrates that atheism is a term that is used in a theological context, whereas agnosticism can be applied to various contexts. When applied to the theological context, it can be conflated with the term theism or atheism without redefining either one. Pro: “Rather an atheist must justify his "God doesn't exist" claim by showing somehow that God, in fact, does not exist.” Response: If we’re talking about a Gnostic Atheist, then yes, the she would have to show that god does not exist. However, if we’re talking about an Agnostic Atheist, then it is not necessary to justify non-belief in god. This is a good example why such a distinction is necessary and the conflation of the two terms actually provides that distinction. Pro: “My opponent does this by claiming, again, mistakingly, that atheism is a lack of belief, not the denial of a belief. The difference is subtle yet important if any fair discussion is going to commence between both parties.” Response: I think that the distinction is not necessarily relevant to the resolution of this debate, as I have already demonstrated that the two terms can be conflated together without changing the definition of atheism. The distinction is indeed subtle and I don’t particularly have an objection to the use of either definition. Pro: “This subtly, when closely examined, becomes a fundamental double standard, striking any honest seeker of truth with vagueness and dishonesty right out of the gates.” Response: The only seeker of truth that finds such distinction dishonest is one that has incorrectly understood knowledge to be the same as belief, as my opponent seems to have done. The burden of proof is on the person that’s taking the affirmative position and claiming otherwise would be truly dishonest. I have not sidestepped anything and it should be rather clear that a Gnostic Atheist has the same burden of proof as a Gnostic Theist. However, it is also true that neither an Agnostic Theist nor an Agnostic Atheist have the burden of proof, since they’re the default position with respect to the positive claims of their Gnostic counterparts. Reductio ad Absurdum If my opponent’s position is true, then it should make sense in another context: if my opponent believes that Big Foot does not exist, then my opponent would have to provide justification for that belief. More importantly, my opponent would also have the burden of proof that Big Foot does not exist. Indeed, this notion is absurd and it clearly demonstrates that Pro’s position would hold true even in absurd cases. You can replace Big Foot with numerous other absurdities and you would end up violating a central philosophical concept. However, with the definitions I’ve provided, we can clearly identify where the burden of proof rests and it’s always on the party which takes the affirmative position. Conclusion Again, I would like to point out that I have already negated my opponent’s resolution, because I’ve shown that there is a definition out there which conflates Atheism and Agnosticism and it is Atheism in some sense: that alone should be sufficient to win this debate. If we assume that my opponent’s argument is true, then we would have to do away with the fundamental philosophical concept which states that the burden of proof rests on the position asserting a claim. I have also demonstrated that Pro has reached several conclusions based on the false premise that knowledge is defined as a justified belief, therefore making my opponent’s argument unsound. The differences gained by the use of the terms gnostic/agnostic allow us to correctly place the burden of proof on a person taking the affirmative position and not on the critic. [1] http://www.theoryofknowledge.info... [2] http://www.theoryofknowledge.info... [3] http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...