The term "atheist" is to be preferred to the term "agnostic."

Reviewing the syllogism. Frankly the position of p1 or p2 does not hinder the statement nor does it alter the conclusion derived from the syllogism. My adversary claims that he asserts that the existence of God is unknowable but that he does not claim that lack of observation necessitate the fact that he does not exist. This is also false, if you review his round 1 clause. I will offered a quote from his round 1 " A proper rendering into English, therefore, would be "un-knowledgeable." In a partial sense, this is true, as the existence of God is un-knowable, but we are most definitely not "un-knowledgeable" on the subject. This term gives a false impression. If you're a non-believer, you presumably have good reasons." This is a self contradiction if you review his statement. He claims that the root of the word in un-knowledge but claims that is only partly true. He then asserts that if you are a non believer you have a reason to be a non believer therefore you have knowledge. Again this entire outlook and perspective is false at it's core. Just because one believes or does not believe in something does not mean they have knowledge about it, nor can anyone ever have knowledge about God because he is a non sentient being nor is even tangible. The idea of God is an abstract thought measured in subjectivity and rooted in faith. The entire premise and definition behind God relies on faith. There is no knowledge that can actually be achieved by studying God because it is not empirical or verifiable. He then makes a faulty conclusion, which is the following. That all agnostics are atheist. He is basically now saying that agnostics and atheist are not mutually exclusive at least in the perspective that an agnostic is essentials an atheist. This again is false. Again an atheist is making an affirmative claim that God does not exist An agnostic is saying there is no way to know These two are not mutually exclusive because one is making an affirmative position on something that cannot be studied or verified. If you work this out with an example it would play out like this. Roll the earth back thousands and thousands of years In that time everyone believed the earth was flat, and every study and test known to man verified this. People were "knowledgeable" about the earth so they believed it was flat. That belief however did not necessitate the truth. There was evidence missing or not enough knowledge to make a valid conclusion. God is much the same way, except there will probably never be enough knowledge to make an affirmative claim. We can only rationalize what we think is correct, but rationalizing what we think is correct does not actually necessitate it as the truth. Again An atheist is making an affirmative claim based on a logical conclusions that cannot be measured or verified An Agnostic is claiming there is no possible way to know the truth because it cannot be verified The difference is the atheist is the only one that can be wrong, because he is making a positive claim about something that we do not have enough knowledge about An agnostic is claiming the logical position, that there is no way to know or to judge something without empirical proof. Therefore again, agnostic is more preferable to atheism in that sense. My adversary is entirely false by asserting that the two are not mutually exclusive.