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

My opponent’s primary resolution indicates that my opponent has not fully grasped what the terms gnostic, agnostic, theism and atheism, really mean. Dictionary Definitions We can start with the dictionary definitions, which I believe are rather insufficient, but let’s introduce them anyway: Gnostic gnos•tic/'nästik/ Adjective Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge. Agnostic ag·nos·tic/ag'nästik/ Noun A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena Theism the·ism/'THeiz?m/ Noun Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal Atheism a·the·ism/'aTHe?iz?m/ Noun The theory or belief that God does not exist. “Better” Definitions Like I said, I view these definitions as somewhat ambiguous and confusing, so I’m going to clarify them: Gnostic pertains to the position of knowledge that the belief or disbelief in a divine being (i.e. God) is true. An agnostic is someone who holds the position that one does not know wether the belief or disbelief in a divine being is true. Theism, on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of a divine being (i.e. God), where as atheism is the disbelief that God exists. Literally, atheism means “without theism” so it’s the lack of belief in God. As you can see, gonstic/agnostic pertains to the knowledge about the truth of a belief whereas theism/atheism pertains to the belief about the existence of God. One addresses knowledge, the other belief, therefore we can conflate not only atheism and a/gnostisism, but theism and a/gnostisism: Agnostic Gnostic Atheist Agnostic atheist believes that no god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true. Gnostic atheist believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true. Theist Agnoistic theist believes a god exists, but doesn’t claim to know that this belief is true. Gnostic theist believes a god exists and claims to know that this is true. A more detailed explanation of these terms and how they are combined can be found on the iron chariots website: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... If the table below is too complicated to understand, then I present the following venn diagram (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...): My opponent's statement, that a "presumption which seems to combine atheism with agnosticism re-defines 'Atheism' to indicate merely the absence of belief in God," is therefore refuted. Atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief in God. When the terms gnosticism/agnosticism are used, we can get a more granular understanding about what a person is claiming as their knowledge with respect to a belief. I don't understand what my opponent is trying to say when he suggests that an atheist has to prove if God existed, when the atheist does not believe that a God exists. If the atheist were to prove that God exists, then he/she would probably not be an atheist anymore. Other Arguments At the end of the first round my opponent states: "Never mind these questions for now, the topic of debate before us is simply the merging of any form of agnosticism (the claim to no knowledge, which therefore demands no justification) with Atheism (the claim to knowledge, which therefore demands justification) immediately downplays Atheism's claim to fit with and actually be agnosticism. To say I simply lack belief in God' is just a biographical statement, no more." I'm not going to address any of the other claims, since my opponent also suggest we only address the resolution at hand. However, I would address the point of justification and that is simply: atheism is the lack of belief, therefore the only justification that is necessary is based on the lack of evidence to warrant a belief. In other words: the burden of proof is on the person who takes the affirmative position. Conclusion As I have demonstrated, agnosticism pertains to the knowledge about the truth of a belief, whereas atheism pertains to a belief (or lack thereof). Conflating the two is not a redefinition of atheism, but rather a classification of the "levels" of knowledge about the lack of belief in a God. A simple example is saying that conflating dark with blue is a redefinition of blue, and that's simply not the case: it's merely a different shade of blue