Athiesm is the same as Agnosticism

The dictator! Cons suggestion of a type of systematic organization about how we should go about understanding agnostics and atheism is something to be considered. If it is not suggestion, it is an attempt to dictate something into truth. However the fact of the matter is that it’s still at best an idiosyncratic version that does not represent the majority of the way Atheist and Agnostic have or do now identify themselves. For the one thing we could never be wrong about is our own thoughts, they are exclusive to us and us only. Therefore Cons explanation should not be taken any more seriously than any fundamentalist or dogmatic assertions then somebody who goes around telling you what you are, what are your beliefs and what your position is. For one bold assertion is as good as the next. To be The Fool or not To Be The Fool. That is the question? Ontology is a philosophical study about existences in general. Not about particular existences in themselves. Under Cons interpretation, every claim becomes ontological, especially, every truth or falsity of something. For to say something particular is false is synonymous to saying that truth of some particular thing does not exist. Similarly to claim anything false would be to claim that it doesn’t exist that it is true. Secondly under Cons interpretation even agnostic claims are all ontological. According to Con they are claiming that certainty of such knowledge does not exist which thus must be taken as ontological. In the general interpretation agnosticism which is the claim that such knowledge is not possible is synonymous with saying that such knowledge is non-existent. That is Cons misinformed ontological understanding makes ontology so trivial to point of being completely useless. Are you sure you are certain of that question? It is still very alive and well to consider agnosticism as a middle ground. There is no ground for proofing or even suggesting that this interpretation is obsolete what so ever. (Bold Assertion Fallacy) Almost every interpretation searchable is this interpretation. To claim otherwise Con need to prove that most people in the word use that interpretation. Even philosophers are not infallible to a Semantic Fallacy. That is we define word to refer to another set of organized word. Language can only be used to describe reality not to define reality. E.g. I am using my computer, I can define my computer as a HAT but low and behold, what I had been referring to as computer, is still a computer whether I define as something else or not. AKA you can’t ever define something into exist. So nothing is depended on cons definition but another set of words he uses to refer to it. If they don’t describe reality by symbolizing it, then his interpretation is false. Con also claims agnosticism is simply a claim that we could not be certain about the knowledge of Gods. But that makes everybody’s claim which is not a priory certain or logically certain, as an agnostic claim, which means that all atheists and most theists (those who base God on faith alone), are agnostics. Most people know faith is not certain knowledge enough to not go around dictating to others about what they should believe. Most Religious people tend (in the world) to pick and choose what parts of the bible they like or agree with and discard the rest. People often define their own personal version of God. Many people believe in God for the mere fact of having something to believe in. That is, simply for the therapeutic reasons. It often makes us feel better than thinking that life is a purposeless random accident. But by no means epistemological nor ontological. Therefore Cons personal idiosyncratic categorisation system fails to account for such forms of Theists. This is just another good reason for its rejection. I am certainly uncertain that it’s a certain a question!?? Ad hominem fallacy Con: “My opponent defined both "agnosticism" and "atheism" quite accurately in her first round, but then seems to showcase how little she actually understood those definitions in her second round.” The Fool: Please don’t suppose I am ignorant until at least you have at least proved it first. Ipse dixit fallacy Con: “My opponent states this: "Agnostics do not belief that such knowledge is possible. Therefore they lack belief in god or not god."” F1. Con: This is simply false. Calling yourself an "agnostic" does not clarify whether or not you believe in a deity. F2. Con: The Fool lost this debate from the beginning by defining the terms correctly in the instigation and taking Pro. The Fool: Cons conclusions are based on his own unproven bold assertions. Strawman fallacy Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Fool: Con claims my definition correct but at the same time he says that agnostic only means uncertainty of knowledge. But the definition states nothing about uncertainty in fact is says specifically unknown as in unknowable at all. That is NO TRUTH OR FALSE CLAIM AT ALL. Mine is based off a source would represent the popular interpretation, So am more than justified in using this version that I have based my definition on. The very same one CON agreed to when the he accept the debate. And therefore those are the definitions we must work with. And from these definitions I have proved them soundly that they are logical equivalents. Any explanation other than comparing Agnostic and Atheism are superfluous to this debate at hand. The bottom line is that there are quite a few theories buzzing around, with all kinds or strong, medium and weak variations. Therefore too accept Cons for this debate would be at best Special pleading. The Fool has given sound proof from the definition given, his version is the most supported, and the one defined and accepted. Moreover many aspects of Cons explanation where shown inadequate and incomplete. Don’t be Foolish, err I mean be Foolish, err I mean don’ t foolish. Umm I am confused, Just vote FOOL!! ;)